Preach with me
I agree with the inclusion of the penalty-clause for those who "...maliciously engages in disinformation". Any attempt to send to jail based on the clause will have to define "...maliciously" and all the libel-associated legalities.
"If a health care provider refuses to perform a service on religious grounds, he or she should say so, but he or she shouldnt be forced to refer the patient to another"
He SHOULD! because not doing so is endangering the life of the patient.
Remember, in this case it is ALL about the patient and not the provider's religious convictions, otherwise, they have no business being in health care!
We go to hospitals to be treated, it's not a church.
grabe, sobrang evil pala yang mga cfc..pawang kasingungalingan...marami nga sila sigurong attorney members....
yes, they are maliciously spreading disinformation. i would not want my kids near this cfc nutters.
Thanks for the referring link, sparks. Your arguments make for better analysis of the issues.
I would like to add comments for item # 4: "...The bill endorses age-appropriate sexuality education..". It does more than "endorse" as it actually mandates. The subject will be included by force into the curriculum. A child naturally gets failing marks by opting not to attend, upon the preference of the parent whom the bill concedes (Sec 12, par 3) has the "primary and natural right in the rearing..."
(One other minor observation, the group that brought out the ad calls itself CFC-FFL, the splinter group arising out of the CFC split. )
Not too crazy about this bit either:
Those who refuse to render services on account of religious convictions will not be penalized provided that they immediately refer clients to others with the same facilities.
It might be part of a health care provider's religious convictions to not refer clients to others who will perform what said health care provider deems immoral or sinful. If a health care provider refuses to perform a service on religious grounds, he or she should say so, but he or she shouldnt be forced to refer the patient to another. She can simply refuse in cases that arent emergency cases.
Good job, sparks. Although I do have a problem with the 'maliciously engages in disinformation' bit in the above. Too vague, too sweeping, and if youre for decriminalization of libel, too inconsistent with the principles of free speech. That bit has no place in the bill I think. I agree with Couples on that one. If that bit passes, soon every bill will have one.
Commenting by HaloScan
