Speaker 1: Hello, everyone, Welcome to the nonprofits.
Speaker 2: Our first story comes from our friend Heven Meta at
Speaker 2: the Friendly Atheists, where Oklahoma Christian doctors.
Speaker 1: Will be allowed to deny healthcare.
Speaker 3: ELI has a story, presumably for the purpose of demonstrating
Speaker 3: that they don't actually understand basically anything. Oklahoma Republicans have
Speaker 3: introduced House Bill twelve twenty four, sponsored by state Representative
Speaker 3: Kevin West. The bill, if approved, would allow any medical
Speaker 3: professional to refuse to perform any procedure for any patient
Speaker 3: under any circumstances, if performing that procedure violates that medical
Speaker 3: professionals This is a quote ethical, moral, or religious beliefs
Speaker 3: and principles, and this, of course is only Oklahoma's most
Speaker 3: recent attack on the well being of its citizens, but
Speaker 3: it does promise to be the most effective, since it
Speaker 3: provides a direct mechanism for removing somebody else's autonomy and
Speaker 3: literally placing them directly in harm's way, all in the
Speaker 3: name of religious freedoms. If you ask me, public servants
Speaker 3: serve the whole public, and if you're not willing to
Speaker 3: perform medical procedures, you shouldn't be a medical professional. This
Speaker 3: story is by him and Meta from their Friendly Atheist
Speaker 3: on March fifth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Okay, so I'm going to remain this to Tracy first.
Speaker 2: I'm good, this is for the whole pianem. I'm going
Speaker 2: to ask Tracy, why do you think like these gop
Speaker 2: Lawmarckers have such a hard on.
Speaker 1: For dismantling sexual health care for people?
Speaker 4: So I can only trace it back to a I
Speaker 4: want the world to exist only in the way I
Speaker 4: want it to exist. I want things to exist for
Speaker 4: my comfort and for my happiness, and not for the
Speaker 4: happiness and comfort and well being of the society as
Speaker 4: a whole. It comes from a place of entitlement and
Speaker 4: wealth and wealth privilege. These people have been so used
Speaker 4: to getting everything they want out of life, to getting
Speaker 4: you know, to getting their way for lack of a
Speaker 4: better term, that now they want to impose their way
Speaker 4: on other people. They want to do what they want.
Speaker 4: They don't want to do anything else. If you take
Speaker 4: a job, you are to do the things that are
Speaker 4: outlined in that job. I'm sorry if i'm a If
Speaker 4: i'm a if my religious beliefs don't want me to
Speaker 4: be touching a pig, I'm not going to get a
Speaker 4: job at an ABATOI where one needs to slaughter pigs.
Speaker 4: If my religious beliefs have certain precepts against mixed fabrics,
Speaker 4: I'm not gonna go work on a cotton poly blend line.
Speaker 4: You have to take a certain amount of accountability for
Speaker 4: yourself and what you are willing to do, not shove
Speaker 4: that responsibility on other people.
Speaker 1: No, I think that's perfect. Player.
Speaker 2: Do you think it's like a lack of empathy or
Speaker 2: do you think it's just completely like this is just
Speaker 2: like a religious conviction kind of thing.
Speaker 5: I don't think it's either.
Speaker 4: I think they're just babies and they want to have
Speaker 4: things their way, and they want to not only have
Speaker 4: the job that they want, but they want to do
Speaker 4: specifically what they want to do at that job.
Speaker 5: That's not up to you to decide.
Speaker 6: Kelly a lot here, Yeah, I was thinking that's exactly why.
Speaker 6: You know, this thing doesn't only allow for religious objections,
Speaker 6: but for ethical and moral ones as well, So that
Speaker 6: opens up a broad array of things that they could
Speaker 6: just could not give you care for. You know, you
Speaker 6: know me, I'm going to take this idea to the absurd.
Speaker 6: What if the doctor is a racial purist, I mean,
Speaker 6: then they could argue then that seeing anyone that wasn't
Speaker 6: blonde haired and blue eyed was against their ethics and morals,
Speaker 6: their personal you know, they're personal ones. I I as
Speaker 6: I mentioned before the show, I'm only five to five. Now,
Speaker 6: if I was a doctor in Oklahoma, I could argue
Speaker 6: that my ethical and moral standards did not allow me
Speaker 6: to work on people over say five nine. You know, sure,
Speaker 6: I can sew that hernia up for you, but you
Speaker 6: have to let me take three inches off of each
Speaker 6: of your shins. And here's some good news for you.
Speaker 6: I'm only going to charge you have for the shin surgery. So,
Speaker 6: I mean, you know, it seems totally fricking ridiculous to me.
Speaker 6: I don't know, but I think I think you're right, Tracy,
Speaker 6: that this is not about what this is about making
Speaker 6: things so that only a certain group of people are
Speaker 6: going to be taken care of. Let's face it.
Speaker 2: So, so Eli, sine question to you, like, why do
Speaker 2: you think that you know they want to just you know,
Speaker 2: be able to like pick and choose who gets healthcare,
Speaker 2: you know, these especially these Christian doctors.
Speaker 3: So and it's I think it's not a secret that
Speaker 3: there's a lot of people that want to see a
Speaker 3: theocracy in the United States. They may not realize that
Speaker 3: what they want is a theocracy, but they they don't
Speaker 3: recognize the the separation of Christianity and state because Christianity
Speaker 3: isn't a religion, it's a relationship with Christ. And also
Speaker 3: Christianity is true, so it's not like these other religions.
Speaker 3: This is the one that needs to be in the government.
Speaker 3: So we need to pret Christians and make sure that
Speaker 3: Christians don't have to do non Christian things and this,
Speaker 3: and that they believe that they are doing something that
Speaker 3: is good for everybody's eternal soul. Because if we prevent
Speaker 3: people from being wrong, which is what they think being
Speaker 3: trands is or whatever other I think this is a
Speaker 3: way to target you know, you know, trans of gender
Speaker 3: affirming care specifically, I think too, but an abortion and
Speaker 3: like any any of these other things that that like
Speaker 3: conservatives love to you know, uh, the hills that conservatives
Speaker 3: love to die on when it comes to healthcare. This
Speaker 3: is just a way to be like, Okay, well, if
Speaker 3: you're not going to make it illegal, then we're going
Speaker 3: to make it legal to not have to do it.
Speaker 3: And it literally is just like I said, it's turning
Speaker 3: healthcare and well being into a privilege in Oklahoma for
Speaker 3: and it's and it's appropriage for people who believe the
Speaker 3: same thing is as as their doctor, or who want
Speaker 3: care that their doctor believes in. And it's just not
Speaker 3: like we see this problem in like in Catholic hospitals
Speaker 3: already all the time. So it's just not the way
Speaker 3: to care for the public.
Speaker 1: So I saw that, And.
Speaker 2: You know, so you mentioned that there's supposed to be
Speaker 2: an exclusion for emergency care.
Speaker 1: Do you want to expand a little bit more on that, So.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it does say and I didn't read the bill,
Speaker 3: but in the article it mentions there is supposed to
Speaker 3: be this does exclude emergency care. But since that's not
Speaker 3: rigidly defined in the bill itself or like elsewhere, as
Speaker 3: far as I'm aware, like there are definitions for like
Speaker 3: what qualifies as a medical emergency, but I don't think
Speaker 3: that that necessarily includes what is emergency care unless you
Speaker 3: just tie it to like anything associated with this, you know, emergency.
Speaker 3: But that's when you understand medicine that can involve so
Speaker 3: many different things that it's really hard to pin down
Speaker 3: what is considered emergency care and what's not so they
Speaker 3: they most definitions include some variation of the words like
Speaker 3: if there's a reasonable expectation of severe injury or death
Speaker 3: in the absence of care, but reasonable expectation and leaves
Speaker 3: room for interpretation and therefore problems No, And.
Speaker 2: I agree, And I think a lot of problem with
Speaker 2: this too is that it's like, as Kelly pointed out,
Speaker 2: this is going to leave a lot of wiggle room, like,
Speaker 2: you know, like what if you know, someone like I
Speaker 2: don't want to treat you know, people over a certain race,
Speaker 2: or if I even if you're like a you know,
Speaker 2: let's just say a gay person. You know, you're coming
Speaker 2: in for a symbol medical procedure, you know, they can
Speaker 2: deny your because like I don't do gay people icky,
Speaker 2: and they don't want to treat, you know, be around
Speaker 2: people that are gay. That's a real possibility because people
Speaker 2: are prejudiced and terrible and that. And I think, and
Speaker 2: I'm going to pose this to you guys, like, do
Speaker 2: you think this violates a hippocratic oh, hippocratic oath? You know,
Speaker 2: they make a value to you no harm. Does this
Speaker 2: violate that?
Speaker 1: Tracy?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't.
Speaker 4: I haven't read the hippocratic oath, not overly familiar with it.
Speaker 5: But what I will.
Speaker 4: Definitely tell you is that it definitely has the potent.
Speaker 4: It definitely has the potential to get there. Because if
Speaker 4: I could just piggyback off of what Kelly was saying earlier,
Speaker 4: what's to stop somebody from just getting a job, or
Speaker 4: an incumbent doctor, I don't know if that's the right term,
Speaker 4: but a doctor who currently has a job, what's to
Speaker 4: stop that doctor from just saying, yeah, I'm not going
Speaker 4: to do that. And then the question being why, because
Speaker 4: of ethical and moral reasons, why won't you remove this
Speaker 4: splinter from this child?
Speaker 5: For ethical and moral reason?
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 5: That's too personal a question. I have my reasons. It's faith.
Speaker 5: It's faith.
Speaker 4: For a reason of faith, I'm not going to help
Speaker 4: this child. I'm not going to do whatever surgery. It
Speaker 4: definitely holds the potential. And I think that we're if
Speaker 4: I could steal from Eli, I'm just stealing from everybody.
Speaker 4: If I could steal a phrase I've heard Eli say
Speaker 4: a time or two, we're potentiating harm that otherwise would
Speaker 4: not be potentiate.
Speaker 5: And that's just a problem.
Speaker 4: I don't know. I can't really elaborate anymore on it.
Speaker 1: No, it's a lot. This whole article was a lot.
Speaker 2: And one other thing that kind of struck me about
Speaker 2: this was, we know, like on the opposite and there
Speaker 2: have been court cases where parents had or you know,
Speaker 2: brought their child in you know, and they their child
Speaker 2: need a certain medical procedures, like for like, you know,
Speaker 2: blood transfusions for Jeovah's witnesses. Let's just use as for
Speaker 2: an example. And things have gone to core where doctors
Speaker 2: are bringing going to court and saying like, hey, if
Speaker 2: we don't do this procedure, this child is going to die.
Speaker 2: Now we're dealing with a situation where doctors, let's say
Speaker 2: you're Jehovah's witness doctor, I'm just going to put this
Speaker 2: out here.
Speaker 1: Does that mean you get to.
Speaker 2: Deny blood transfusions to children that might need them because
Speaker 2: it goes against your religious convictions? I'm like, Kelly, does
Speaker 2: it open that sort of you know door for those
Speaker 2: certain things to happen?
Speaker 6: No, you just brought up a question in my mind
Speaker 6: that I would love it. And can you be a
Speaker 6: doctor and be a JW I don't know, I don't
Speaker 6: even known, but.
Speaker 2: An interesting concept crazy world that we love in because
Speaker 2: every day is Obo saved that fucking.
Speaker 6: Day here now right, That just totally stopped my whole
Speaker 6: brain from thinking about it as a result, you please
Speaker 6: that question that on.
Speaker 2: So let's say you're Joho's when the doctor and and uh,
Speaker 2: a person needs a blood transf you shouldn't say their life.
Speaker 2: Your Bible is teaches your particular scripture teaches you that
Speaker 2: you cannot mix blood. King is that you.
Speaker 6: Canne b let that person die?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Sure? Why not?
Speaker 6: That? See? This is the problem with this law is
Speaker 6: that well, actually, because it makes an exception for emergency
Speaker 6: that you would have to give the blood transfusion at
Speaker 6: least until the person was stabilized. And I think that's
Speaker 6: what emergency procedures would be defined as, until the person
Speaker 6: becomes stabilized. That's like, they can't deny you in an
Speaker 6: emergency room until you are stabilized. Then they can kick
Speaker 6: you out. So I think that's the main I think
Speaker 6: that's the point right there. So probably not they couldn't
Speaker 6: deny you the blood transfusion if it was an emergency,
Speaker 6: but they could surgery. They could. Yeah, well I'm about
Speaker 6: to say they could deny uh, they could deny other
Speaker 6: procedures though when it was an emergency. And this is
Speaker 6: the problem. This law is way overly broad. I don't think,
Speaker 6: you know, they keep putting these bills in like this,
Speaker 6: and I don't think this one, like many of them,
Speaker 6: when they get into the courts just don't hold up.
Speaker 6: The courts are striking them down, and we can at
Speaker 6: least be thankful of that that the US Constitution is
Speaker 6: still on our side with these things. So I'm a
Speaker 6: little worried about the way the courts have been changing
Speaker 6: over the last few years, especially the federal courts, and
Speaker 6: how they the people who have different ideologies than mine
Speaker 6: have been being appointed to positions on the on the benches.
Speaker 6: So I'm a little worried about that. But I think
Speaker 6: even still, I mean, we've got Scotus that made some
Speaker 6: rulings that were against some of the ideals of our
Speaker 6: current administration already, so I think we're the courts will
Speaker 6: probably be on our side with most of this stuff. Fortunately.
Speaker 2: So Ela, you mentioned that you've had some experience in
Speaker 2: the medical field. Was your kind of feeling about this,
Speaker 2: you know, from the stuff you've seen and what you
Speaker 2: think is coming down the pipeline.
Speaker 3: So I and just for like clarity, I spent a
Speaker 3: brief amount of time as a as an EMT or
Speaker 3: an ambulance just to not like I don't want to
Speaker 3: like idal over sell, but I don't have that that
Speaker 3: certification anymore, just to be totally clear. But the I
Speaker 3: actually I'm not sure that I agree with Kelly's conclusion
Speaker 3: because I think that when when you get to the
Speaker 3: level of being a doctor, right, there's always there's always
Speaker 3: protocols in hospitals, in emergency rooms, there's like there's a
Speaker 3: medical director that says, like, okay, in these circumstances, and
Speaker 3: they're they're pretty exhaustive, and it goes like, these are
Speaker 3: the emergencies that we are equipped to handle, and this
Speaker 3: is what we're going to do in those circumstances. These
Speaker 3: are the drugs we're going to give, These are this
Speaker 3: is the order in which we're going to like we're
Speaker 3: going to do this IVY location first, and if we
Speaker 3: can't get that one, we're going to try this one.
Speaker 3: And like that specifically is how this goes. When you
Speaker 3: get to the level of being a doctor, you are
Speaker 3: expected to like you have to justify the decisions that
Speaker 3: you're making. But if you don't follow that protocol, but
Speaker 3: you can justify not following that protocol, like that's not
Speaker 3: a bad thing, right, So in the event of like
Speaker 3: we have to give a blood transfusion or this person
Speaker 3: you know will uh will die, if you can justify
Speaker 3: saying like, well, there's a chance that if we give
Speaker 3: this you know, antibiotic regimen this aggressively, then that could
Speaker 3: counteract the infection and then we wouldn't need the blood
Speaker 3: transfusion and we could just do the anibi a regimen.
Speaker 3: And or if there's some way that you can justify,
Speaker 3: like there's the medical potential for making for benefiting the
Speaker 3: patient otherwise, and if you can you can justify like
Speaker 3: a greater benefit than the benefit of doing the transfusion,
Speaker 3: they can then make another choice and just justify that
Speaker 3: to their medical director as long as and that is
Speaker 3: kind of up to interpretation, like if that's justifiable or not.
Speaker 3: So I think that I think there are enough good
Speaker 3: doctors that will still provide the care to their patients
Speaker 3: that is both appropriate based on their professional medical opinion
Speaker 3: and in line with the patient's wishes. I think there
Speaker 3: are good doctors that will do that but I think
Speaker 3: that there are also people that have had experiences where
Speaker 3: they have wanted, you know, they didn't agree with their
Speaker 3: doctor on what their care plan should be, and they
Speaker 3: were sort of like just bulldozed by the doctor because
Speaker 3: they have the education, the experience, and and of the
Speaker 3: certification to say like, no, I know better, I know
Speaker 3: what I'm talking about and this wouldn't be right for you.
Speaker 3: And this, I think just opens the door for more
Speaker 3: situations like that.
Speaker 2: Well, you may have a good point about that, because
Speaker 2: we know that, you know, doctors arek is considered a
Speaker 2: position of authority and though where people will automatically default
Speaker 2: to their doctor's opinion rather than even if it goes
Speaker 2: against their own health, like you know, they have a problem.
Speaker 1: But if a doctor, like, you know, you're feeling.
Speaker 2: Chronic symptoms, doctor says, you know, oh it's this or that,
Speaker 2: and they kind of just like, okay, well the doctor
Speaker 2: doesn't think it's that serious, and then it progresses they
Speaker 2: go back doctor says like.
Speaker 1: Oh, you know, well maybe you should get a second opinion.
Speaker 2: But I think it's this there there could be misagnoses,
Speaker 2: there's misconceptions with we've seen it's still now people having
Speaker 2: misconcepsions about women people of color, you know about you
Speaker 2: know what their bodies can handle and not handle, and
Speaker 2: so on and so forth. So this adds another to
Speaker 2: that as well. So my question is, and I'm going
Speaker 2: to bring this back to Tracy, where does the line
Speaker 2: between your personal connections and beliefs and and the responsibility
Speaker 2: to others begin? And should you be compelled to do
Speaker 2: something against your own morals even if it seems cruel
Speaker 2: to others? You know, I'm just asking this. You know,
Speaker 2: as you know something, you know people's rules.
Speaker 1: So I want to hear your opinion on this, Tracy.
Speaker 4: Well, this is what I'm going to say in Okay,
Speaker 4: you're for a doctor, for a physician specifically, Uh, that
Speaker 4: doesn't factor as near as I can tell. When you're
Speaker 4: a doctor, when you're a medical professional, you are a
Speaker 4: public servant. You are there to serve and do your
Speaker 4: trade as it has been lined out and as you
Speaker 4: are called to do so. If you don't want, if
Speaker 4: you have a moral issue with performing a d and
Speaker 4: E or any other or prescribing medication to a trans
Speaker 4: youth or something about that, you can still be a
Speaker 4: physician and just put yourself in a situation where you
Speaker 4: won't ever have to do that, such as you'll be
Speaker 4: a dermatologist or an optometrist or there's several different kinds
Speaker 4: of doctors if you desperately want to help people in
Speaker 4: the medical field, but there's certain things you don't want
Speaker 4: to do, like I, for instance, would never be a dentist.
Speaker 4: I can't mess around in people's teeth. I find that disgusting.
Speaker 4: If you find trans people disgusting, maybe don't. Maybe just
Speaker 4: go be an optometrist.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 4: You're still gonna encounter trans people, but you're not gonna
Speaker 4: have to deal with the transness.
Speaker 5: You're just gonna give them glasses.
Speaker 4: It's a pretty basic it's a pretty basic idea of
Speaker 4: just if you don't want to do something, don't put
Speaker 4: yourself in a situation where you're gonna have to do it.
Speaker 6: But this bill would allow you to even deny the
Speaker 6: glasses to a trans person. That's the fucking problem with
Speaker 6: this thing.
Speaker 5: Right, that's the further problem.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, right.
Speaker 3: I would argue that if you think trans people are gross,
Speaker 3: you don't understand physiology well enough to be a physician,
Speaker 3: so you shouldn't be.
Speaker 5: I would agree that I'm just.
Speaker 4: Out there, like, I'll never understand people have this sense
Speaker 4: of entitlement. Like in a library, people get mad about
Speaker 4: what books are in there. All the books go in
Speaker 4: a library, all of them. That's my understanding of a library,
Speaker 4: a place where we put all the books. A hospital
Speaker 4: is where you go to get medical help, all of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's where we tend to go. Like, oh no,
Speaker 1: like you know, I you know, I broke my leg.
Speaker 1: Oh no, I'm having weird cramps. Oh no, like you know,
Speaker 1: I got shot in my arm. Let me shut the
Speaker 1: damn hospital.
Speaker 3: So we should fit into this box.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to fit into a box.
Speaker 2: So so like and I obviously, like all of us
Speaker 2: you know, that want to have allow people to have
Speaker 2: their beliefs, like not none of us are saying that
Speaker 2: people shouldn't have their beliefs. But also the same thing,
Speaker 2: we also have the opinion that there should no harm
Speaker 2: happen to others, you know, as human as we want
Speaker 2: to reduce harm.
Speaker 1: I think this is just my opinion, y'all.
Speaker 2: I think that this increases harm and that's not what
Speaker 2: doctors are supposed to do. So another note, I'm going
Speaker 2: to get everybody thirty seconds to answer this question. So
Speaker 2: in states where like there's abortion bands and limit access
Speaker 2: to reproductive care, we are now seeing women die or
Speaker 2: survive or suffer real severe health problems because of these
Speaker 2: laws that are coming through the pipeline. So do what
Speaker 2: future do you see for the constituents in these states
Speaker 2: who voted for Representative Kevin West that gave him his position,
Speaker 2: and even for politicians looking to keep their position, what
Speaker 2: are the type of things that they should be really
Speaker 2: considering to keep their positions? And you each get thirty seconds,
Speaker 2: So go, Tracy, go.
Speaker 4: If you want this country to continue in any form
Speaker 4: that's recognizable as this country, you're gonna need to stop
Speaker 4: taking away rights from people and go back to implementing.
Speaker 5: That's the end. That's it, that's all. That's all I got.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm gonna say that's all seconds. They don't give
Speaker 6: a shit about your rights, they don't care about your health,
Speaker 6: they don't care about your well being. This is Oklahoma.
Speaker 6: They also have another billa in there to make it
Speaker 6: legal for teachers to beat disabled children. I'm gonna say
Speaker 6: that again, to beat disabled children. They don't give a
Speaker 6: shit about people's well being. That's my thirty seconds.
Speaker 3: Now I think that, Yeah, I think that what we're
Speaker 3: forgetting to consider is all the harm we're preventing to
Speaker 3: the Christian doctors that don't want to do their job,
Speaker 3: because if we make them do their jobs, how harmful
Speaker 3: would that be. I'm kidding, zero percent harmful. I just
Speaker 3: want to make it care I'm totally kidding about that.
Speaker 3: I think this is stupid. I think it's ridiculous. And yeah,
Speaker 3: Oklahoma continues to just not impress me at all with
Speaker 3: their policies and the way that they seem to think
Speaker 3: about things.
Speaker 1: That's a collective. So for those of you that want
Speaker 1: to hear more about more.
Speaker 2: Craziness that's going on, go ahead and find another video
Speaker 2: here or there or whatever.
Speaker 1: You click on another.
Speaker 2: Nonprofit video y'all, and thank you for watching and like
Speaker 2: to subscribe.
Speaker 1: Bye,