Economy/Health Passed General Election
✗

PEAPAC Recommends: NO

Expands state involvement in commerce; imposes state-dictated practices in the name of fairness.

Summary

Prohibits discrimination against different types of health care providers (like chiropractors vs doctors) in insurance and service.

Biblical Reasoning

Like Measure 35, the passage of this measure would expand the civil State’s involvement in commerce. While some of us may benefit personally from this Measure, we must evaluate such issues on the basis of sturdy principle, not pragmatic benefit. This is the backbone of the “benefits revolution”… that we are advocating.

Jeremiah 22:13 — “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages,”

Election Results

59%
41%
YesNo

Voters approved the anti-discrimination measure for healthcare providers (59% Yes).

Full PEAPAC Analysis

Like Measure 35, the passage of this measure would expand the civil State’s involvement in commerce. While some of us may benefit personally from this Measure, we must evaluate such issues on the basis of sturdy principle, not pragmatic benefit. This is the backbone of the “benefits revolution” See “How Shall We Then Vote? Presuppositions – The Purpose of Civil Government” pg. 11 that we are advocating.

While the State now intervenes (in an unbiblical fashion) in many health care issues, this is not the state’s job. We won’t make it better by imposing, (in the name of “fairness” or personal gain), yet one more state-dictated practice for this area of commerce. An insurance provider is a private business, and should be allowed to act as such. We recommend a NO vote on this Measure.

Related Measures

Measure 35 (1996) — Similar measure regarding state involvement in healthcare commerce View →

← PreviousMeasure 38 (1996)