Posted on 02/08/2015 1:02:31 PM PST by Morgana
A widely supported bill to let Washington State University open a medical school in Spokane hit a snag when a Seattle lawmaker asked the school to promise that it would not limit teaching on reproductive health or end-of-life care because of its partnerships with religious hospitals.
House Bill 1559 was scheduled to be voted out of the House Higher Education Committee on Friday, but the vote was delayed after Rep. Gerry Pollet, D-Seattle, pushed that amendment, the Seattle Times reported. WSU supporters say they have no intention of restricting medical education. But they say Pollet's amendment has no place in the bill.
"It's way out on the front end of the process," said Ken Roberts, acting dean of the WSU College of Medical Sciences. Pollet is the only legislator he's heard raise such a concern, Roberts said.
Rep. Marcus Riccelli, D-Spokane, the prime sponsor of the bill, said he's confident the proposal will pass out of the committee next week, without Pollet's amendment.
The bill has broad bipartisan support, with 65 co-sponsors. It would end a 1916 restriction that allowed the University of Washington to operate the state's only medical school.
(Excerpt) Read more at modernhealthcare.com ...
Some low-information types think the First Amendment is about freedom FROM religion.
” First Amendment is about freedom FROM religion.”
Well in some sense it is when it comes to Islam.
If Islam were actually a religion instead of a murder/rape/conquest cult.
In Washington both abortion and assisted suicide are legal and became so due to a vote of the people. A state university has an obligation to not limit its teaching regarding legal medical procedures due to religious objections.
Excuse me? If I were a student there, I would absolutely refuse to participate in such evil. Just because something is legal does not make it moral or ethical. Students have a right not to participate in such and tax payers have right not to pay for it.
What are you? Some pro-death troll? Maybe just a godless anarchist aka “libertarian”
Your point that, “a state university has an obligation to not limit its teaching regarding legal medical procedures due to religious objections,” is valid until it is interpreted as forcing the teaching of medical procedures on those who have religious objections. The valid part of your point is a part of non-establishment of religion, the extension to require the learning of medical procedures over religious objections is a violation of the free-exercise clause.
As a student, I am certain that one could refuse to participate. As a taxpayer, the choice isn’t so clear - there are all manner of things people object to having their tax dollars fund, but the fact is, in Washington, the people have already spoken.
I don’t think you can “force” someone to learn anything. They will either learn or they will not. These aren’t the kind of procedures that are taught to first year medical students as a general requirement - they are things that are more specialized and taken as electives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.