Should doctors be able to withold treatment for political affiliation or marital status?

[rambot]

‘Extremely disturbing and unethical’: new rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans

Doctors at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals nationwide could refuse to treat unmarried veterans and Democrats under new hospital guidelines imposed following an executive order by Donald Trump.

The new rules, obtained by the Guardian, also apply to psychologists, dentists and a host of other occupations. They have already gone into effect in at least some VA medical centers.


Medical staff are still required to treat veterans regardless of race, color, religion and sex, and all veterans remain entitled to treatment. But individual workers are now free to decline to care for patients based on personal characteristics not explicitly prohibited by federal law.

Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated.

Anyone care to explain how it could be a good thing for healthcare professionals to refuse to care for anyone?

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Also to the point, most of the doctors I know (working in a central facility of a university that's attached to a really quite large teaching hospital) are far more left-wing than right.

Might well not be Democrats who have to worry about not getting the treatment they need and are entitled to...

 

[Bradskii]

Anyone care to explain how it could be a good thing for healthcare professionals to refuse to care for anyone?

I find it impossible to come to terms with a thought process that would result in this.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is that actually the intent of the change, or is this a case of the "ready fire aim" Trump approach that could have haphazardly removed some anti-discrimination language that leads people to assume that the ambiguity means the worst?

I think it's pretty clear what the intent was of this, so in the interest of honesty, let's just come right out and say it.

The intent was to prevent VA staff from being compelled to provide transition-based gender affirming care, and (as I noted earlier) Trump's haphazard approach likely chopped off too much from the verbiage.

Under the new verbiage, it doesn't explicitly protect pizza topping preferences as that's not a federally protected status under the current administration.

Would the guardian have ran an article implying that the administration was seeking to deny care to veterans who put pineapple on their pizza? Obviously not...


So let's just be adults and talk about about what the intent is in an honest manner.


Was it a dumb directive (in terms of execution), obviously... Saying "denial of care based on anything that's not specifically mentioned in federal anti-discrimination law" is a haphazard approach as I noted earlier.

But I don't think it's an honest argument to try to assume the worst possible motive to what is, in essence, a matter of irresponsible ambiguity.

 

[bèlla]

Aren’t doctors and hospitals permitted to abstain from certain procedures like abortion for ethical reasons? Wasn’t a similar argument made years ago about the wedding cake and gay marriage? I said it would open a can of worms and here we are. If political affiliation and marital status is fair game. I can’t see how race, religion, and sexuality wouldn’t follow suit or be challenged in court if others are allowed.

~bella

 

[Hentenza]

I’m not a member of X but I found this post by the VA. I can’t link it but maybe someone here can find it and link it. Here is the copy and paste.


“This story is disinformation. All eligible Veterans will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law.
Quote

Aaron Glantz

@Aaron_Glantz
·
13h
EXCLUSIVE: Doctors at @DeptVetAffairs hospitals nationwide could refuse to treat unmarried veterans and Democrats under new hospital guidelines imposed following an executive order by Donald Trump. The VA calls the change a "formality" ‘Extremely disturbing and unethical’: new rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans




12:58 PM · Jun 16, 2025
·
155.1K
Views

 

[BCP1928]

Is that actually the intent of the change, or is this a case of the "ready fire aim" Trump approach that could have haphazardly removed some anti-discrimination language that leads people to assume that the ambiguity means the worst?

I think it's pretty clear what the intent was of this, so in the interest of honesty, let's just come right out and say it.

The intent was to prevent VA staff from being compelled to provide transition-based gender affirming care, and (as I noted earlier) Trump's haphazard approach likely chopped off too much from the verbiage.

Under the new verbiage, it doesn't explicitly protect pizza topping preferences as that's not a federally protected status under the current administration.

Would the guardian have ran an article implying that the administration was seeking to deny care to veterans who put pineapple on their pizza? Obviously not...


So let's just be adults and talk about about what the intent is in an honest manner.


Was it a dumb directive (in terms of execution), obviously... Saying "denial of care based on anything that's not specifically mentioned in federal anti-discrimination law" is a haphazard approach as I noted earlier.

But I don't think it's an honest argument to try to assume the worst possible motive to what is, in essence, a matter of irresponsible ambiguity.

Or calculated ambiguity.

 

[Hentenza]

And this one.

VA Disputes Guardian Report on Alleged Discrimination

A VA spokesperson declares core elements in The Guardian’s report to be false

www.hcinnovationgroup.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And this one.

VA Disputes Guardian Report on Alleged Discrimination

A VA spokesperson declares core elements in The Guardian’s report to be false

www.hcinnovationgroup.com

It should be noted that the Hill, MSN MedPage, and the VA themselves have all said that the Guardian article should be retracted.

I'm shocked that the publication that attempted to give credence and legitimacy to a Michael Moore "documentary" about 9/11 would've exaggerated something. </sarcasm>

 

[Hentenza]

It should be noted that the Hill, MSN MedPage, and the VA themselves have all said that the Guardian article should be retracted.

I'm shocked that the publication that attempted to give credence and legitimacy to a Michael Moore "documentary" about 9/11 would've exaggerated something. </sarcasm>

Some folks just believe anything they read in the internet.

 

[Bradskii]

But I don't think it's an honest argument to try to assume the worst possible motive to what is, in essence, a matter of irresponsible ambiguity.

From the link:

'VA hospitals’ bylaws said that medical staff could not discriminate against patients “on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, politics, marital status or disability in any employment matter”. Now, several of those items – including “national origin,” “politics” and “marital status” – have been removed from that list.

Get that bit? It's not they have decided to formulate a set of bylaws and oops, forgot to put in that you can't discriminate against someone because of their 'national origin, politics and marital status'. Their bylaws already had that included. It's now the fact that they have been actively removed from the bylaws..

From here: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5353202-va-hospitals-report-white-house-denial/

'Kyleanne Hunter, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said the VA has historically been “very expansive” in its antidiscrimination policies, which have gone beyond federally protected classes. In response to Trump’s executive order earlier this year, some bylaws have “shrunk” so that antidiscrimination policies only encompass federally protected classes like race, religion and sex. '

This is a portion of the bylaws from the VA hospital in Southern Arizona, dated 2017: file:///C:/Users/61435/Downloads/36C25818Q0069-002%20(2).pdf

'Decisions regarding Medical Staff membership are made without discrimination for reasons such as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, lawful partisan political affiliation, marital status...'

A more recent bylaw I can find is from Palo Alto, dated this year: https://www.va.gov/files/2025-04/MEDICAL BYLAWS_April 2025 - Final.pdf

Decisions regarding Medical Staff membership are made consistent with law and without regard to an individual’s legally protected status, such as race, color, religion, sex...'

You'll note that 'national origin, gender, sexual orientation, lawful partisan political affiliation, marital status' are not included. I think that it's safe to say that if all the bylaws are reasonably standard, then the more recent one has had those items actively removed.

Do you think that's 'irresponsible ambiguity'? If the above is indeed an accurate report of what has happened, could you find some way to actually support it?

 

[Hoping2]

‘Extremely disturbing and unethical’: new rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans



Anyone care to explain how it could be a good thing for healthcare professionals to refuse to care for anyone?

Don't believe everything you read.

 

[Bradskii]

In regard the Palo Alto link, this outlet had more luck finding a direct comparison and found the 'old' v 'new' versions, which appears to corroborate what I said above: VA Disputes Story Asserting That New Rules Allow Docs to Discriminate

'MedPage Today did find differences between 2023 and 2025 bylaws for the VA medical facility in Palo Alto, California. As shown in the Wayback Machine, the 2023 bylaws opens in a new tab or window said, for example, that "Decisions regarding medical staff membership are made without discrimination for reasons such as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, lawful partisan political affiliation, marital status, physical or mental handicap when the individual is qualified to do the work, age, membership or non-membership in a labor organization, or on the basis of any other criteria unrelated to professional qualifications."

The same section in the 2025 bylaws opens in a new tab or window reads, "Decisions regarding medical staff membership are made consistent with law and without regard to an individual's legally protected status, such as race, color, religion, sex, or prior protected activity."

The references to sexual orientation, political affiliation, marital status, union activity, and physical or mental handicaps appear to have been removed, while "gender" has been replaced with "sex."

I'm not sure why they said 'appeared to have been removed'. They obviously had been. I'm pretty certain (or should I say that I'm hoping) that existing federal laws would disallow discrimination on most of those items anyway. But the question needs to be asked - why on earth did someone actively remove them from the bylaws?

 

[rambot]

Is that actually the intent of the change, or is this a case of the "ready fire aim" Trump approach that could have haphazardly removed some anti-discrimination language that leads people to assume that the ambiguity means the worst?

I think it's pretty clear what the intent was of this, so in the interest of honesty, let's just come right out and say it.

The intent was to prevent VA staff from being compelled to provide transition-based gender affirming care, and (as I noted earlier) Trump's haphazard approach likely chopped off too much from the verbiage.

Under the new verbiage, it doesn't explicitly protect pizza topping preferences as that's not a federally protected status under the current administration.

Would the guardian have ran an article implying that the administration was seeking to deny care to veterans who put pineapple on their pizza? Obviously not...


So let's just be adults and talk about about what the intent is in an honest manner.


Was it a dumb directive (in terms of execution), obviously... Saying "denial of care based on anything that's not specifically mentioned in federal anti-discrimination law" is a haphazard approach as I noted earlier.

But I don't think it's an honest argument to try to assume the worst possible motive to what is, in essence, a matter of irresponsible ambiguity.

OOO Good!

Yet another person to translate Trump for us all.

That said I do like your phrase "irresponsible ambiguity". Sadly, I see that as a huge red flag with this adminstration given its willingness to bend rules. I don't know why a centrist would ALSO not see it as "extra problematic" with this admin.

 

[rambot]

I am inclined to agree that the title of this article may be a bit beyond salicious but to call it disinformation is also incorrect.

From the link:

'VA hospitals’ bylaws said that medical staff could not discriminate against patients “on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, politics, marital status or disability in any employment matter”. Now, several of those items – including “national origin,” “politics” and “marital status” – have been removed from that list.

Get that bit? It's not they have decided to formulate a set of bylaws and oops, forgot to put in that you can't discriminate against someone because of their 'national origin, politics and marital status'. Their bylaws already had that included. It's now the fact that they have been actively removed from the bylaws..

From here: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5353202-va-hospitals-report-white-house-denial/

'Kyleanne Hunter, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said the VA has historically been “very expansive” in its antidiscrimination policies, which have gone beyond federally protected classes. In response to Trump’s executive order earlier this year, some bylaws have “shrunk” so that antidiscrimination policies only encompass federally protected classes like race, religion and sex. '

This is a portion of the bylaws from the VA hospital in Southern Arizona, dated 2017: file:///C:/Users/61435/Downloads/36C25818Q0069-002%20(2).pdf

'Decisions regarding Medical Staff membership are made without discrimination for reasons such as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, lawful partisan political affiliation, marital status...'

A more recent bylaw I can find is from Palo Alto, dated this year: https://www.va.gov/files/2025-04/MEDICAL BYLAWS_April 2025 - Final.pdf

Decisions regarding Medical Staff membership are made consistent with law and without regard to an individual’s legally protected status, such as race, color, religion, sex...'

You'll note that 'national origin, gender, sexual orientation, lawful partisan political affiliation, marital status' are not included. I think that it's safe to say that if all the bylaws are reasonably standard, then the more recent one has had those items actively removed.

Do you think that's 'irresponsible ambiguity'? If the above is indeed an accurate report of what has happened, could you find some way to actually support it?

Honestly, I feel very comfortable that this level of nuance is going to be lost on the critics.

I do think it's too bad in thier reporting that they may discredit themselves for the "clickbait" I think a bit.


Regardless, it looks like there are no unprotected classes yet again.

 

[Yttrium]

Oh, cool. Now I'm finally part of a minority that can be discriminated against. Single people. Better yet, I'm a veteran, so this could apply to me... if I ever get around to applying for veteran benefits. But maybe this can be expanded into other parts of government too. Interesting.

 

[Hentenza]

Oh, cool. Now I'm finally part of a minority that can be discriminated against. Single people. Better yet, I'm a veteran, so this could apply to me... if I ever get around to applying for veteran benefits. But maybe this can be expanded into other parts of government too. Interesting.

The article is fake news. Don’t tell me that you believe everything you read in the internet?

 

[rambot]

The article is fake news. Don’t tell me that you believe everything you read in the internet?

For all those commenting about this being fake news:

Do you see (or do you not see) that 2 protected classes were removed from protection (as per post #13)?

That's the ONLY question to consider.


Yes the VA spokesperson said "everyone will continue to get protected". Is that true? Easy enough to say that right now. If that were true, why bother to remove those protected classes? What's the point in removing them?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

OOO Good!

Yet another person to translate Trump for us all.

Does anyone honestly think the intent of the move was to encourage doctors to decline providing care for single people? Half of the people in the military aren't married.

Or, given the backdrop of the administration's current push to rollback some of the transgender DEI initiatives, fair to say it more targeted at that? (and was just done in a haphazard way)

 

[rambot]

Does anyone honestly think the intent of the move was to encourage doctors to decline providing care for single people? Half of the people in the military aren't married.

Or, given the backdrop of the administration's current push to rollback some of the transgender DEI initiatives, fair to say it more targeted at that? (and was just done in a haphazard way)

Why does it matter WHAT the intention was? Really.

Also, I'm not exactly a fan of ANYONE being denied medical treatment as a fully grown functioning adult (so long as its backed by science).