Meeting Public Comments

Morgan Hockey

I strongly oppose this bill, and urge the subcommittee not to advance it. Aside from the medical discrimination this would open LGBTQ Iowans to, this bill is incredibly vague in what it would allow providers, hospitals, and insurers to deny. Sec 3.1.a of the bill states "A medical practitioner, healthcare institution, or healthcare payor has the right not to participate in or pay for a healthcare service that violates the medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, or healthcare payors conscience. This paragraph shall not be construed to waive or modify a duty a medical practitioner, healthcare institution, or healthcare payor may have to participate in or pay for a healthcare service that does not violate the medical practitioners conscience."Based on the definitions in Sec 2, practitioners, institutions, and payors could deny care or payment for ANYTHING. What's to stop an insurer from creating a written policy stating their moral objection to the treatment of type 2 diabetes? If they view a lifestyle that could lead to type 2 diabetes as a personal moral failing, why shouldn't they be able to deny treatment under this bill? If someone broke their arm while skateboarding, and a practitioner believes skateboarding promotes an immoral lifestyle, what's to stop them from denying followup care after the initial ER visit?Health insurance is also a forprofit business, with an incentive to deny payment any way possible. The target of this bill is clearly LGBTQ healthcare, and I can't imagine a business that wouldn't jump at the chance to cut costs by making blanketdenials for LGBTQ healthcare on the basis of "moral objections". If you give these companies an easy out, they will take it, and health outcomes will be negatively impacted for ALL Iowans, not just your latest scapegoat.This is a bad bill for many reasons, and it needs to be thrown in the trash.

Vero Hernandez

Im commenting my strong opposition to SF220 and any bill of similar composition. This bill would singlehandedly allow for transgender individuals to be legally discriminated against by healthcare providers and insurance companies. This is bill absolutely benefits no one. Vote No to discrimination.

Anastasia Scholze-Wang

I greatly disagree with this policy and strongly urge the subcommittee not to advance it. Its too vague; from what I understand of this bill ANY medical professional/insurance payor could deny an individual coverage/treatment on moral grounds and the push of their conscience. Besides the obvious horrible ways this will disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ folks and women, what happens when a doctor or insurance companys conscience or religious beliefs doesnt allow them to prescribe meds for. Type 2 diabetes? Asthma? Its already hard enough to find good healthcare in this state and country. I know people (and myself) who have to wait 6+ months for specialist appointments. And you want to make getting medications and care harder on the slippery and subjective grounds of conscience and moral obligation? Absolutely immediately oppose. I urge the subcommittee to dig deep into their own conscience and see how this only harms the vulnerable.

Sora Anderson

Obviously, I strongly oppose anything that opens up the possibility for trans people and others to be discriminated against. I thought the whole idea of Jesus was to love your neighbor and take care of the sick and the poor? This goes against everything that Jesus has taught us! Jesus loves his transgender children as much as he loves everyone. I'm not religious but I don't believe in discrimination! It's wrong, and NOBODY should be denied healthcare based on their gender identity or anything else! It's wrong and unethical! Whoever came up with this bill should be ashamed of themselves! Strongly oppose! Trans rights are human rights and Healthcare should be a human right! Stop using stupid harmful bills to punch down on the transgender community and focus on actually helping people for once! Maybe raise the Iowa minimum wage so people can have more of a livable income and not have to struggle so much? Just a thought.

stella armstrong

i strongly oppose SF 220. this bill is incredibly harmful and should not make it out of subcommittee. genuinely appalling that were even considering these things. a persons personal beliefs should not instruct their care as a medical provider. doing such is irresponsible and goes against the very oath they swore. regardless of that, this bill will easily be abused by bigoted people in all sorts of places. vote NO on SF 220.

Laura carlson Laura carlson

I am in favor of this bill. Forcing a medical provider to act in a manner against his or her value and belief is abhorrent. Every person is entitled to personal choice. Permitting staff to split work situations would provide each patient with care they desire without forcing medical staff to violate their moral code. Please don't force someone to act in a manner against their believes.

Kevin Hendress

I am in support of this bill, this helps maintain a trustworthy and ethical healthcare system for everyone. Healthcare workers should be allowed to speak up and also not be forced to participate in an operation or procedure that goes against their religious beliefs. We had a shortage of workers in Iowa, lets make it more attractive for all workers.

Nancy Gronewold

I support this bill. Medical workers have a right not to be forced to take action against their beliefs, and to be protected from discrimination when reporting something wrong. No one should be forced to leave their first amendment rights when walking through the door into work. Please support this bill.

Victory Moore

Support SF 220! This bill is crucial for honest & ethical medical providers. Freedom of Belief: Healthcare workers shouldnt be forced to do procedures that go against their personal or religious beliefs.Speaking Up Safely: If healthcare workers see something wrong or dangerous, they should feel safe to report it without fear of losing their jobs or facing punishment. Protects providers from discrimination if they refuse to participate in a medical service or product.Right to Free Speech: Healthcare workers should be able to share their honest opinions and information without being silenced or punished.Protection for All: These protections also apply to hospitals, clinics, and insurance companies, ensuring they can operate according to their values and speak out when necessary.

M Ree

Please allow individuals to choose whats right for them! It is important to have dedicated healthcare workers and equally important that their choices and rights are still respected.

Courtney Collier

Please pass SF 220 vote yes.

Scott Wosepka

Please support SF220. The harm we saw happening to our health care workers during the Covid pandemic was unacceptable. Please stop this by supporting this bill. Thank you for your consideration.

Jonathan Hutton

Conscience, whistleblower and free speech rights for healthcare professionals and payors are foundational to the practice of medicine just as it should be in anyone's employment. As secular employers and government officials increasingly seek to force healthcare professionals to participate, facilitate, and advertise for procedures to which many have deeplyheld beliefs and conscientious objections, it is even more important that conscientious objectors be free from discrimination and never have to choose between violating their conscience and losing their job. I believe that many healthcare workers have been lost because of forced institutional measures that go against their sincerely held beliefs. Also, in an industry like healthcare, the ability of some insurance providers to object gives consumers more options. If every insurance plan in America, without exception, had to cover and include abortion, would faith based organizations be able to provide employerbased health insurance? This was the problem facing faithbased nonprofits in New Hampshire when their legislature passed a bill that would have required them to cover abortions if they cover any pregnancyrelated health expense. Fortunately, that bill was vetoed because Governor Sununu understood how illogical it would be to force these employers to stop covering everything to avoid covering abortion, something everyone in their organizations fundamentally opposeand may have even signed a faith statement opposingas part of their employment.I am in favor of this bill, please advance.

Kayden Ellis

I vehemently oppose this bill. Medical practitioners swore to the Hippocratic oath, meaning they care for everyone, regardless of exterior circumstances or ulterior motives. Regardless of their sworn oath, medicine cannot and should not be withheld because of moral beliefs: that is not what medicine is nor what is does. People are entitled to the care they seek, and their medical staff should not have a MORAL grandstand or strawman interfering in the delivery of their care. Give the people their pills.

Gwendolyn Neal

I strongly oppose this measure. This is only the most recent step in a naked attempt to make it as difficult as possible to live out a transgender life in Iowa. Trans medicine is crucial for trans life, and besides, this bill could give doctors leeway to reject Trans patients regardless of whether the care they need is related to gender. Denying a patient necessary medical care is an act of cruelty against another person that cannot be justified by an appeal to religion, much like how ritual murder is not acceptable religious expression.

Kelly Bailey

I strongly oppose the SF 2200 bill. The Hippocratic oath states "...I shall try to establish a friendly relationship with my patients and shall accept each one in a nonjudgmental manner, appreciating the validity and worth of different value systems and according to each person a full measure of human dignity." If this bill passes, it will allow every healthcare provider/entity to completely disregard the oath they took to serve the public. It will pave the way for any and all types of discrimination based on whatever arbitrary excuse they can find. Healthcare is a need, not a want. Additionally, Mercy (a Catholic based healthcare system) is one of the largest in our state. Should they be allowed to deny care to any nonCatholics? Or maybe someone who hasn't been to a Mass recently? This bill is clearly an attempt to legislate discrimination and should be trashed.

Keri Jones

Please support this bill. As a healthcare worker and a friend of many healthcare workers, we must be allowed to choose for ourselves!

Moni Rain

This bill should be opposed and there should be no question about that. No one should be scared to seek medical care of any kind. No one should worry that they may not receive the care they need or that a medical provider might say, "I don't want to help you" because of that providers personal beliefs. Medical care should be free of judgement. It is about helping and healing people, not turning people away because of religion or beliefs. This bill would put people's lives at risk and it must be opposed.

Jonah Propp [University of Iowa]

This is a dangerous bill that puts LGBT youths at risk of being forced to undergo conversion therapy (a proven harmful form of therapy) based on adoptive parents religious beliefs. This only serves to hurt LGBT youth. I implore you to reconsider the effect would have on our states minors.

Jessica Chrystal [Parent ]

Keep your twisted personal religious views out of Government and public policy!!!You have to follow a pretty shitty religion if it mandates you to punch down on my kid and 1% of the state population!!This kind of bill and religious extremism passes in Russia. Go serve there and stop embrassing yourselves.No Iowan asked for this bill and none of you ran on it. Stop sucking up to The Family Leader & Bigots 4 Liberty.This does nothing to change the price of eggs,solve the underfunding of public schools and the cost of daycare.Your stupid culture wars and unoriginal ideas (we know this exact bill is being introduced around the country)are why no one wants to live and work in this state.