And so it begins...

[rubato]

Certain beliefs reasonably disqualify people from certain professions. Pacifists cannot be policemen nor fighter pilots. Christian Scientists cannot be phlebotomists. &c.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

While I agree with you in principle, I do think that there are a lot of professions where a member could refuse to do something they believe is morally objectionable--so chemists can refuse to work on chemical weapons. biologists on biological weapons, even lawyers can choose to refuse to accept certain clients if they do not believe they can properly represent them--and a moral objection can factor in here. So I can see the problem which might be faced by the physician who will not perform certain medical procedures based on moral beliefs they hold.

That being said, physicians are in a special place in our society as they have a monopolistic control over the healthcare system; unlike any other profession, no one can access virtually any healthcare without going to a physician, whether it is getting access to RU 486 or a euthanasia cocktail, or have access to other medical procedures and medications. Given this stranglehold on the healthcare system, physicians and other healthcare workers are in a very different position than other professionals and we cannot afford to give persons the right to limit access to healthcare based upon their personal beliefs or feelings. Unless we can somehow reform the system to permit others, or the patients themselves, to have such access on without the permission of a physician (and this may not be practical), then we cannot and should not permit physicians and surgeons to refuse to perform perfectly legal procedures based on their personal feelings.

[BoSoxGal]

Bravo Big RR! I enthusiastically endorse your position!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah, lawyers can refuse . . . well, whatever . . . because (of course) they don't have a monopoly on access to justice - because, of course, any person who wants to use the civil court system can simply walk in and sue someone without knowing how to do so, which color paper to use, or even the magic words that judges (lawyers all) want to hear. And then of course anyone accused of a felony can represent themselves (and have a fool standing for them). It's all so easy. Why do we need lawyers at all really?

But now, Joe Blow, a doctor surrounded by thousands of other . . . what do you call them? Oh yes, doctors who can do what Joe does not. Joe must anyway be constrained to do whatever repugnant thing (to him) that er. . . what do you call them? Oh yes, lawyers think all doctors should be forced to do.

Now I understand.

[Guinevere]

Yes, anyone who wants to use the civil court system can come in and sue on behalf of themselves. And every judge I’ve ever been before will bend over backwards to help pro se litigants. Often at the literal expense of the other parties.

Meanwhile, when was the last time you walked into a hospital and scheduled the OR for your own procedure?

[Big RR]

I agree Guin, the courts give a lot of leeway to pro se litigants, in civil and criminal courts.

and Meade, FWIW, many times towns and even regions in the US do not have even dozens of doctors--only a couple or a few; and even one doctor refusing to perform a procedure (or. e.g., prescribe birth control pills) can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for people in those areas to have such access. And, let's forget surgery; when is the last time you even went to a lab and had your cholesterol or other blood chemistry checked without getting a note from the doctor saying it was OK that they do so, or you refilled your blood pressure medication (or even get athlete's foot cream) without getting a prescription from the doctor? It's more than just saying you don't know how to effectively treat yourself (just like not knowing law/procedure might make you hesitant to represent yourself in court or file your own taxes), it's the law saying you cannot do so even if you want to try.

And further, I am willing to permit physicians to have the same rights to refuse performance of certain tasks as granted to other professionals when and if we can resolve this problem. So long as the doctor is the only way to legally access a treatment or drug, and there is no effective alternative, then we cannot allow the doctor to block the access of another person to it because of his or her moral beliefs.

[Scooter]

I may be wrong, but if there were a lawyer who refused to take a voting rights case because he/she didn't believe that blacks should have the right to vote, or refused to take an anti-discrimination case from a gay person because he/she believed that gay people should not be protected by anti-discrimination laws, or refused to take on a real estate deal involving a Jew because he/she doesn't believe that Jews should have the right to own property, then I would guess that the lawyer would him/herself be running afoul of civil rights laws or anti-discrimination ordinances applicable in the jurisdiction, to say nothing of whatever discipline he/she would face by the state bar.

[Big RR]

That's an interesting point Scooter; legal ethical rules requires a lawyer to zealously represent his or her client and if one's personal beliefs (however repugnant they might be) prevented the lawyer from doing so, I think it would be incumbent on the lawyer to refuse the representation--not to do so could invite discipline. it might be different if a lawyer refused to write wills for a gay couple or to put together a corporation for a black woman, but for a representation at a trial, I think the refusal would be defensible.

Guin or Sue, perhaps you might have a bit more experience with this and would care to weigh in?

[ex-khobar Andy]

The late lamented Rumpole of the Bailey said: "A barrister, my dear sir, is a taxi plying for hire. That is the fine tradition of our trade." In other words, the barrister like the taxi driver is not free to determine whether or not he agrees with the client. I'm not sure: maybe Scooter's Canadian experience might be more aligned with the Rumpole experience.

I would think that if a doctor had a sincere belief that (for example) artificial birth control was immoral, then s/he could become a cardiologist. Otherwise a house painter or welder. But NOT a primary care physician.

[Big RR]

Point taken Andy, the rules and law may be quite different in the UK and Canada. Indeed, I seem to recall hearing of something years ago (maybe in a movie, maybe in some sort of training, referred to as the taxi line (or maybe queue) rule which said that a barrister must take every case coming to him/her much as a taxi driver must take every fare when he is at the front of the line. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I don't know what they are.

It is different in the US.

[Guinevere]

First day of ethics class -- lawyers are not buses, you do not have to take on everyone that flags you down.

So yes, Scooter, in the private practice of law, a lawyer is free to discriminate on any basis he or she likes with respect to taking a case. And as BigRR points out with respect to zealous representation, if you can't meet that standard, don't take the case. See the ABA Model Rules of Conduct:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/prof ... ointments/

Rule 6.2: Accepting Appointments

A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as:

(a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(b) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer; or

(c) the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client.

BigRR -- I cannot even get reasonably effective birth control without seeing a doctor!

[Scooter]

If a lawyer can declare that a black person, or a gay person, or a Jew is so "repugnant" to him/her that he/she will not represent anyone falling into those categories, and that is ok with the legal profession, then perhaps that another target that needs to be addressed as we battle against these so-called "religious freedom" laws.

[wesw]

sometimes repugnant people just happen to be white, or black....., or gay....

if you find someone so repugnant it would be hard , I think to prvide a good defense.

there would always be the danger that your repulsion would effect your effort level, or your diligence.

even if you were trying to be professional, it might not be possible to not be effected.

hell, public defenders don t even know the people that they represent and they still only give them 5 minutes on the court date, in the court, to become known to them oftentimes.

but I could be wrong.

you could certainly have defended manson effectively....

there were arguments to be made, but should anyone have been forced to defend him?

I don t think so.

[Scooter]

I'm pretty sure you're not quite so stupid that you don't get the difference between someone being repugnant because of something they personally have done, and finding an entire class of people repugnant because of their race, religion or sexual orientation.

But you obviously have no problem with the latter, so...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sometimes I'm puzzled that the best way to live in freedom is to restrict people's ability to choose. Then I realize it's only a desire to restrict what each of us does not agree with and it all becomes clear.

[Scooter]

The Trump administration is denying citizenship to the kids of gay parents if they’re born abroad

A Trump administration change to how immigration law is implemented has led to the children of same-sex couples being denied American citizenship.

Several years ago, the State Department issued rules to how it would implement the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Before, under the INA, a child born to a married couple living abroad had a right to American citizenship at birth if one of their parents was an American citizen.

But that changed in 2017.

“The U.S. Department of State interprets the INA to mean that a child born abroad must be biologically related to a U.S. citizen parent,” the State Department’s website says. “Even if local law recognizes a surrogacy agreement and finds that U.S. parents are the legal parents of a child conceived and born abroad… if the child does not have a biological connection to a U.S. citizen parent, the child will not be a U.S. citizen at birth.”

This changed nothing for heterosexual married couples. Passport applications don’t ask if a child was conceived with the help of a sperm or egg donor, which may cut the biological tie between the child and the American parent.

They also don’t ask for DNA-testing from heterosexual parents in cases where the father is the American citizen, even though his marriage to the mother doesn’t mean that there’s a “biological connection” to the child.

Instead, the State Department usually just assumes that the people who are on the birth certificate are the child’s parents, if the parents are straight.

But same-sex couples stand out, and the State Department isn’t willing to apply the same assumption of parentage to them. Which means that their children can end up being labeled as born “out of wedlock” for the purposes of immigration law, even if their parents were married.

The Daily Beast talked to several families that have been unable to get passports for their children. Allison Blixt, who is American, and her wife Stefania Zaccari have been living together in London since 2008 because they couldn’t find any way for Zaccari to stay in the U.S.

When their first son Lucas was born in 2015, they tried to get him an American passport.

“I thought he would get citizenship, because we were married,” Blixt said. “He would be viewed as my child, no question.”

Because Lucas was born to Zaccari, he was considered an “out of wedlock” birth, even though Blixt and Zaccari were married at the time of his birth and both were on his passport.

Two years later, when Blixt had their second child, Massimiliano, he was able to get an American passport right away.

“They’re basically saying, ‘Yes, Massi is your son, but Lucas isn’t.’ How do we explain that to our kids, that they’re not the same? That’s appalling,” Blixt said.

“He’s being treated like someone who has no connection to the U.S., much as a stepchild would. It’s offensive.”

Earlier this year, gay dads Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks and their two sons made headlines when a federal judge ruled in their favor.

Because Elad’s sperm was used to create one of their sons, and only Andrew is an American citizen, that son couldn’t get an American passport. But they took their case to court.

“The basis for the State Department’s imposition of a biological requirement is its strained interpretation” of immigration law, the judge wrote.

But the State Department announced last week that it was appealing the decision, a process that could take years and could result in discriminating against LGBTQ families.

“When the government appealed last week, I mean… I thought, I can’t believe it,” Blixt said. “If we want to actually move to the U.S., we can’t just wait until the case is resolved. We have to find other solutions.”

Torturing children by refusing to recognize their citizenship. If you thought the criminal enterprise that is the current administration could sink no lower, you were wrong.

I guess these kids will end up in cages just like the children of asylum seekers.

[Lord Jim]

This is yet another example of just the sheer mean-spirited dickishness that defines so much of this Administration's policy decisions, especially with anything related to immigration...

I haven't looked up the numbers, but it's logical to assume that this policy change doesn't affect a huge number of people, (as an overall percentage) and certainly makes no kind of large scale impact on the citizenship numbers (if that's your concern) ...

But it causes gratuitous pain and inconvenience for everyone it does affect, and it's an excellent way for Trump to say to his bigoted followers , "See what a dick I can be?"...

I get the distinct impression that somebody in this Administration, (Stephen Miller, or perhaps someone tasked by him for this happy chore) is going through every law and regulation that in some way relates to immigration with a fine tooth comb looking for any way to fuck with people who normally would be granted citizenship or a path to citizenship (I read another article recently where the minions of the Trump regime are trying to find ways to make it easier to revoke Green Cards and permanent legal resident status) for no other purpose than to earn plaudits from the racists and xenophobes in Trump's base (who view gratuitous cruelty for it's own sake towards the groups they fear/despise as a positive and laudable thing)

The fact that in this particular case they can also throw some meat to the homophobes in the Trump base is of course an added plus; a "twofer" from their twisted point of view...

[Big RR]

I have to agree; having adopted two children abroad, I had no problem in getting them agree cards to bring them here and then get citizenship by virtue of their parents (my wife and I) being US citizens--I think the law even changed in the late 90s which made the citizenship automatic unpon entry into the USwithout having to file any papers. If they can do that for adopted children, there is no reason to deny the children of a legally married gay couple the same citizenship. It's nothing but mean spirited garbage to screw with gays.

And, fWIW, there are so many ways to revoke green cards right now, that there is no even scintilla of valid reasons to broaden it. Trump proves he is a big dick (even though he has a small one, or maybe because he does).

[Scooter]

That's an angle I hadn't even thought of, if biological relationship to the U.S. parent is required, then no child adopted abroad would have a right to U.S. citizenship. I suspect whoever is responsible for this travesty did not think through the implications...

[Econoline]

• it's an excellent way for Trump to say to his bigoted followers, "See what a dick I can be?"...

Yep, this pretty much sums up his entire pResidency...