Frankenstein Reincarnated
By canceling God’s creation with overarching evolution theory, the collectivists have the license to decide their gender. That is counter to the natural divine construct of the two sexes.
We live in a culture where flaunting sin is common and opposing sin is considered hate. Society calls good what God calls evil. See Romans 1:18-32. That is the basis of the programmed denial of natural humanity. The glory of a man and woman united in matrimony to build a large family gets society’s scorn. The people who tout the diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) mantra will sneer at large families in the grocery store. It is a sad reflection of where society has fallen. This DIE narrative is a heterophobic construct. Deniers of natural heterosexual sex, birth, and binary gender have a soapbox monopoly, willingly and unwittingly spewing the “benefits” of a population-reducing program.
Frederick R. Smith June 27, 2022
Read time 10 min 3 sec | 1,527 words | 89 sentences
Tell the Federal Government to Do No Harm to Health Care
Churches of various denominations have ministries of healing, education, and social services that bear witness to God and build up the common good. Church institutions are not mere providers of social services. They are expressions of ministry dedicated to human flourishing. They serve all people, regardless of race, sex, religion, or any other status, because God has imbued every person with inherent human dignity. Most Americans understand that mission-driven organizations should be free to operate following their missions. But a recent rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would prevent religious-based hospitals, clinics, assisted living facilities, and health care workers from carrying out their work. This same concern applies to health care workers in non-religious settings with the same conscience concerns.
New Unjust Mandates from HHS
The HHS rule implements the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act, Section 1557. It protects people from discrimination based on their sex in health care. But HHS interprets Section 1557 to impose new gender identity mandates. According to the new rule, it would be considered discrimination for a health care worker or religious-based hospital to object outright to performing gender transition procedures, regardless if it is a matter of religious belief or clinical judgment. The proposed rule also suggests that the government may refuse to honor the right of health care workers and providers not to perform or participate in abortions. The proposed HHS Section 1557 rule could function as both an abortion mandate and a gender transition procedure mandate.
Objection to gender transition is not discrimination
All people should get treatment following their God-given dignity, and no individual should be denied health care because of their sex. Most people understand that when medical professionals determine gender transition procedures such as the administration of puberty-blocking drugs or surgery to remove healthy body parts to be harmful, they are making clinical judgments, not discriminating against persons. Seventy percent of registered voters recognized that objection to the procedure is not discrimination.
No protections for health care workers to oppose abortion and gender transition procedures
Although the proposed regulations say that HHS will consider whether conscience and religious freedom laws apply, the regulations offer no assurance that HHS will ever agree that anyone has the right to follow their beliefs or convictions. In a disturbing teen of events, HHS is currently fighting court rulings that hold that HHS violated religious freedom laws the last time they tried to impose this mandate.
Health care workers and religious facilities must be free to object to these procedures conscientiously
Many religious leaders and other influential people frequently defended the rights of medical professionals to object to harmful procedures conscientiously. Most people agree.
Take Action
Public comment on this rule addressing Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ends on October 3rd. To help ensure the rejection of this bad regulation, HHS needs to hear from you today! Click here for a handy portal to submit your comment.
With only one day to submit your comment, please use the following text from that portal revised for use as a letter to your senators and representative.
Dear []
I write to comment on the proposed rule addressing Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The changes proposed by the Biden administration would further, and in some cases, require, the taking of innocent human life, make diagnosing and treating certain patients more difficult, and threaten the conscience rights of healthcare providers.
Expanding the definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” in section 1557 of the ACA to include “the termination of pregnancy” could have tragic repercussions on health care professionals if it were ever implemented. With this change, the regulations could be read to require doctors and health insurers to perform or cover abortions. If interpreted in this way, the availability of federal financial assistance could be conditional on acts that devalue the sanctity of human life. Health and Human Services does not have a compelling interest in requiring the provision and coverage of abortion, especially when Congress has repeatedly protected decisions not to engage with abortion.
The right to exclude abortion coverage from health plans and the right of health care providers not to provide or refer for abortion is protected under federal law. Section 1303 of the ACA, as well as Churches, Coats-Snow, Weldon, Hyde, and Helms amendments, protect the conscience of health care providers. Further enforcement of these existing conscience provisions, as well as a plain interpretation of discrimination “on the basis of sex” (as opposed to the flawed definition proposed by this change), are vital to clearing up any confusion over whether section 1557 can be interpreted to require the performance or coverage of abortion.
In addition, this administration’s move to reject basic human biology and its role in providing proper medical care by including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in the definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” would force individuals in the medical field to violate their consciences and even their best medical judgment. It will lead to harming the very patients it purports to help.
This change would make it harder for doctors to properly diagnose and treat patients who identify themselves as transgender. It is widely known that disease sometimes presents differently in men and women and that men and women sometimes need different medications for the same condition. Mandating that doctors ascribe to an unscientific view of gender would not only trample on the conscience rights of those in the medical profession, but it would harm the patients themselves. It could hinder doctors from being able to diagnose a patient’s condition and provide the necessary treatment promptly and accurately. We have already begun to see hindrances in swift patient care due to this unscientific ideology. For example:
A biological woman identifying as a man and listed as a man on medical records was assessed for kidney disease as a man, causing treatment missteps and nearly resulting in death.
A biological female identifying as a man appeared to be a masculine, overweight man to hospital staff. Therefore, they had no reason to think the patient was pregnant and in labor. Sadly, the patient did not receive immediate care and delivered a stillborn baby. The doctor noted that the male classification “threw us off” from the patient’s actual medical needs.
The definitional changes proposed by the administration could also be interpreted to require that doctors provide or refer patients for gender transition procedures (including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries) against their conscience and professional medical judgment. It could also be interpreted as requiring health insurance providers to provide coverage for such procedures. These procedures carry significant health risks to patients and have not been shown to reduce suicidal ideation or otherwise improve patients’ mental health in the long run. Doctors should not be forced to provide or refer patients for any procedure that goes against their conscience and that they believe will harm the patient, especially those that pose significant risks to a patient’s health and have not been shown to improve patient outcomes.
For these reasons, I sincerely hope you will work on legislation to reject these proposed changes to section 1557 of the ACA.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Fred’s Reflection
By canceling God’s creation with overarching evolution theory, the collectivists have the license to decide their gender. That is counter to the natural divine construct of the two sexes. That enables a plethora of anti-God, anti-Ten Commandment endeavors. The Culture of Death (abortion) cult is the capstone. It is a controversial issue, and like other human endeavors, there are two dominant “sides.” Abortion is an item that touches the primal instincts of procreation and freedom. So, the worst in humanity emerges.
Thirsty for something sacred, the global elites give the masses earth worship. That makes humankind less critical, thus fulfilling the globalist desire to tamp down and transition society. It is a form of sacrifice to Mother Gaia. Not surprisingly, environmentalists adopt New Age religious-like views. Scientists have become mystics and alchemists in the pursuit of environmental policy. The transition of humankind flows hand in glove with that policy.
Excellent piece. Thank you for the explanation and ammunition to fight back.
That will not go over very well.