Catholic healthcare providers get a lot of sympathy for their desire to be allowed to refuse to perform certain procedures like abortions or sterilizations. In Michigan their attempts to get exemptions from the legal and ethical standards that apply to everyone else may mean that any healthcare provider will be able to refuse to treat any person on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

First Amendment Center explains:

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol. ... The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The main bill in the package would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act. It would allow health-care providers to assert an objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a procedure with which they do not agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused. ... The other three bills, which were approved by similar margins, would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health-care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement. The measures would not allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.

State Rep. Jack Minore, D-Flint, said the bill would prevent patients' health-care needs from being considered before anything else. ... [O]pponents said they're worried the bills would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Supporters of the bill say that it is necessary in order to preserve religious freedom - but while religious freedom is important, medical ethics are also important. When people become medical professionals they become obligated to uphold certain standards of behavior which requires that, at times, they put professional standards ahead of personal standards.

Thus, even if they don't personally like a black person or foreigners, they are obligated to treat them just like they would treat anyone else. If there is a doctor-patient relationship and the treatment is indicated for the relevant condition, then there is an obligation to do the procedure or find another doctor who will in a timely fashion. To just refuse would probably constitute abandonment in most places.

Catholics and others in Michigan would like to overturn such standards, however, and allow medical professionals to dispense with messy medical ethics that might force them to treat gays and lesbians like real human beings. The basic principle of all medical ethics codes is that the health of the patient comes first - now, in Michigan, it looks like the health of the patient will only come in at a distant second, providing that the medical "professionals" will consider it at all.

Logos states:

The "clear aim" of this legislation has nothing to do with homosexuals. The proposed law is "clearly aimed" at ensuring that nurses and other health professionals will not have to participate in performing abortions if that is objectionable to them.

That is an unforgivably false statement - unforgivable, because the law was quoted just before this statement and nothing in the law mentions abortion. The law is not "clearly aimed" at any one type of procedure. On the contrary, the law is very broadly aimed at absolutely any sort of procedure that a doctor might have a moral or religious objection to. There is nothing about this law which excludes performing a procedure on a person merely because of their sexual orientation - a very real concern for people because it has happened. Logos goes on to say:

When Sullivan says that he doubts that this occurs routinely for doctors, this clearly shows that he is unaware that medical students, interns, and residents are expected (and sometimes required) to perform or participate in abortions as a routine part of training in obstetrics and gynecology.

This is also a false statement. According to NNAF:

[O]nly 12% of ob/gyn residency programs require training in first trimester abortions. It is the most common ob/gyn surgical procedure in the U.S. today, yet one-half of ob/gyn residents have never performed one. Only 7% of residency training programs require training in second trimester procedures. Many hospitals do so few abortions they could not be appropriate training sites.

Routine? Hardly.

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• Bioethics