Do KLZ radio hosts know the difference between informing people and killing them?

9 Comments

by: Jason Salzman

(If it starts with “Do KLZ radio hosts know…” the answer is generally predictable. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

I spend a lot of time criticizing conservative talk-radio hosts, and some people think I’m beating my head against the keyboard.

Too bad for me. Here I go again.

I can’t accept that KLZ host’s Ken Clark and Jason Worley agree with Sen. Ted Harvey when he says, on the radio, that Sen. Morgan Carroll’s bill requiring hospitals to post a list of services that they do not provide is like “putting yellow stars on the door of religious hospitals.”

Even if you disagree with her bill, proposed legislation like Carroll’s and Nazi Germany have zero in common with one another.

You may think it’s ridiculous that I even write the above paragraph, but that’s what we bloggers have been reduced to, particularly because the legacy media is mostly ignoring the Colorado GOP’s Nazi talk this year.

The Nazis killed people and Carroll’s bill informs them. Carroll’s bill would’ve helped consumers make a purchase. That’s it.

So, if you’re Ken Clark and Jason Worley, how could you possibly listen to this exchange without objecting?

Sen. Kevin Grantham (at 16:30 in the podcast): “Ken, I kind of wonder if Patrick Malone would have made the same statement, or did even ask the same question to Rep. Carrol when she was running her Senate Bill 93, wondering whether she is going to have a legacy… or she’s worried about her legacy as a bigot for what she’s doing to hospitals and to private religious hospitals. Doesn’t that make her a bigot as well?”

Asked to explain, Grantham said that SB 93 would require “religious hospitals to post the services they do not provide,” which would be a requirement targeted specifically at catholic hospitals. This is not correct, since it would apply to all hospitals, but Grantham maintained that the bill was targeted specifically at abortion issues and other life issues.

Later, in a discussion about how the Democrats’ strategy on civil unions will backfire, Harvey said:

Sen. Ted Harvey (at 39:32): I don’t like to repeat the negative and talk about what their talking points are. And what my talking points are is that this is an attack on religion. This is [an] attack on the right of conscience, and the ability of people to exercise their faith the way that they believe is best for them. And I think that the people of faith are seeing this for what it is, and it’s a direct attack on them and they are now not sitting on the couch, not sitting in the pews, and just trying to live their lives and take their kids to school, and go to work and do those kinds of things. They are truly scared of what this is we’re talking about. We’re talking about an entire party in the United States that thinks it’s okay to force people of religious faith to do something against their religion. And that’s never happened in the United States before. You heard Kevin [Grantham] talking about Senate Bill 93 where it forced hospitals to put on their door a yellow star, for all practical purposes. To say, ‘this is who we are, and we have to tell you who we are.’ Never in American history have we had a major political party say that that’s okay. And that is what you are seeing right now. And people of faith across the country are rising up and saying, ‘No, not in our country.’ SB-93 is like putting yellow stars on the door of religious hospitals.

9 thoughts on “Do KLZ radio hosts know the difference between informing people and killing them?”

ArapaGOP says:

May 18, 2012 at 11:53 pm

You’ll probably go nuts attacking me now, but I think Jason’s logical fallacy needs correcting anyway.

Log in to Reply
1. Old Time Dem says:
  
  May 19, 2012 at 12:24 am
  
  that displayed a lick of sense?
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Phoenix Rising says:
  
  May 19, 2012 at 12:51 am
  
  The Nazis started with labels, not killing. But they were labeling people to marginalize them and demonize them.
  
  Sen. Carroll’s bill is strictly informative; I don’t want to check in to a hospital if they can’t (or won’t) take care of some complications from the procedure I’m going in for – and I’d like to know that I’m not going to receive substandard care if they have to ship me across town due to that complication.
  
  Log in to Reply
morgancarroll says:

May 19, 2012 at 12:56 am

Religious intolerance is when you decide your beliefs need to be imposed on everyone else.

SB 93 addressed notice to patients of any health care that a religiously-owned hospital refuses to provide. This is called informed consent. It is their right not to provide it. It is a patient’s right to know that before they show up at their ER.

(There are over 90 services refused on religious grounds. Do you know what services are denied or where? That is why factual patient disclosures so they can make informed consent is so critical).

This matters for reproductive, OB-GYN care, end-of-life decisions, palliative care, organ transplants, blood donation, heroic measures, recognition of same-sex medical powers of attorney.

I am Jewish and find their reference to “yellow stars” for offering truth in disclosures in health care beyond offensive. My mom and I were in the former Soviet Union helping Jews facing persecution leave for freedom. The Holocaust and Jewish persecution should not be the subject of political sport and distortion for GOP political games. Opposing the bill is certainly their right, but this disrespects and dishonors the memory of millions of people.

If religious hospitals are allowed to refuse otherwise medically appropriate services, patients should at the very least a right to know that so they can exercise their right to go elsewhere.

Log in to Reply
1. ProgressiveCowgirl says:
  
  May 19, 2012 at 1:23 am
  
  I’m Jewish by heritage and interfaith by choice, descended from Russian Jewish immigrants, and I also find their characterization offensive and demeaning.
  
  What if someone WANTS to seek services only from a hospital that doesn’t provide abortion, for instance? If there’s the robust Christian evangelical pro-life majority in Colorado that these hosts like to think there is, your bill should bring business in droves to the religious hospitals.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. harrydoby says:
  
  May 19, 2012 at 1:52 am
  
  This is exactly the point of informed consent. Both my wife and I have living wills to provide guidance to our family, doctors (and lawyers if needed) in the event we, for example, fell into a persistent vegetative state.
  
  If we happened to be admitted to a hospital that for religious reasons failed to honor our request (pull the plug after a reasonable period of time and with the concurrance of more than one qualified physician), then that would make a tragic situation even worse.
  
  The last thing we would want, now that we have moved to a Republican district, is having our representative grandstanding for the right of the hospital to keep our mortal remains breathing long after we have departed this dear earth, a la the circus around Terri Schaivo.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Ralphie says:
  
  May 19, 2012 at 3:57 am
  
  n/t
  
  Log in to Reply
4. dukeco1 says:
  
  May 19, 2012 at 4:17 am
  
  excellent work. There is no logical or sensible reason, that I can discern, to oppose your bill. But it is such now that one of the parties that is supposed to help govern the country, is engaged in a contrary activity…disaster capitalism.
  
  The Democratic Party must win the House, keep the Senate, and re-elect Barack Obama…and we must work our asses off for our local candidates.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. GalapagoLarry says:
    
    May 20, 2012 at 12:03 am
    
    Log in to Reply