Michigan's Slippery Slope

The Republican led Michigan State House has penned an incredibly misguided piece of divisive legislation that will allow medical personnel to refuse to treat you based on "moral, ethical or religious grounds."

Imagine getting a form letter from your doctor saying something like this:

It has come to my attention that you are a Baptist. I believe Baptists to be an immoral, unethical sect of Christianity and counter to my religious beliefs, which view Baptists as practicing a vulgar and bastardized version of Christianity. Under Michigan Law I am notifying you that I am declining to treat you for the reasons above.

Because political arguments are for the most part moral arguments, the reasons to exclude someone from care can go on and on.

Because you…
…are gay or lesbian.
...have voted for Political Party X or Y.
...engaged in sex before marriage.
...supported/did not support the war in Iraq.
...are part of/not a part of a particular church, temple or faith.
…received a DUI.
…believe in creationism/evolution.
…supported/did not support a local issue.

God help the person who receives that letter from a specialist in a rural area. The travel time to a new specialist could be 4 or more hours for some in northern Michigan and the U.P. Should this bill become law, it could quite literally be a death sentence for some.

The bill is being argumed and framed by the right as one that advances freedom.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.

However, Long and the Right are missing a big point. There are two kinds of freedoms in the Constitution: Freedom to, and Freedom from.

The religion clause of the first amendment contains both the freedom from (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) and freedom to (…prohibiting the free exercise thereof). The problem here is that while Long claims the bill “promote[s]… religious freedom,” because it allows people or institutions to exercise their beliefs, it may in fact do the opposite by imposing one’s beliefs on another. By allowing medical professionals to choose whom they treat based on religious, ethical or moral grounds, rather than treating all people as a professional would, they may be imposing their beliefs on others backed by the weight of law.

In other words, by advancing the freedom to, the Michigan legislature may have run afoul of the freedom from.

This law is the slipperiest of slopes and echoes the same logic that’s been used to divide people for ages. Wake up, Michigan. You’ve got a problem on your hands.