Michigan Dentists Reject Whitmer's Mandate for Bias Training
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 7 hours ago
A battle for freedom of thought is brewing as healthcare professionals in Michigan challenge Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s mandate for 'implicit bias' training.
In a bold lawsuit filed by Grand Rapids dentist Kent Wildern, the state’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) is accused of overreach by requiring ongoing training for around 400,000 healthcare workers to retain their medical licenses.
Wildern, who has practiced dentistry for 40 years, took a stand against the so-called ideologically-driven "bias training," arguing that it is unsupported by scientific evidence and infringes on the rights of medical professionals.
The lawsuit hinges on Whitmer’s executive order aimed at "improving equity in the delivery of healthcare," which seems more about enforcing compliance with progressive ideologies than safeguarding patient care. Experts have long questioned the scientific validity of implicit bias and its purported connection to healthcare disparities, labeling such training as ineffective and, at times, counterproductive.
Wildern's legal team, representing him through the Pacific Legal Foundation, asserts that LARA's rule lacks any legitimate statutory authority and serves only to regulate the "subjective states of mind" of healthcare providers. "This is about protecting our medical professionals from being coerced into adopting radical viewpoints," Wildern stated in his complaint.
Whitmer’s administration has ramped up enforcement, reportedly launching over 132 investigations against healthcare professionals who have opted out of the training. This aggressive approach led many to believe the state is more focused on ideological conformity than actual healthcare delivery.
Beyond the lawsuit in Michigan, a companion case has emerged in California, where the Pacific Legal Foundation is fighting against similar mandates. California's laws require that all continuing medical education programs for physicians include curriculum on implicit bias, a measure that has drawn ire from medical advocacy groups and professionals who see it as another layer of government exertion into personal beliefs.
In light of these developments, some medical institutions are beginning to re-evaluate their own diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Notably, Vanderbilt University Medical Center recently announced the elimination of its DEI programs in compliance with Trump-era directives.
The growing pushback against these mandates may signal a turning point. As medical professionals unite to reclaim their autonomy, it is clear that a dialogue on the limits of government intervention in healthcare is more critical than ever.
As patriotic Americans stand up for the principles of free thought and professional integrity, they send a resounding message that ideological constraints have no place in the practice of medicine.
Sources:
justthenews.com
nypost.com
basedunderground.com
In a bold lawsuit filed by Grand Rapids dentist Kent Wildern, the state’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) is accused of overreach by requiring ongoing training for around 400,000 healthcare workers to retain their medical licenses.
Wildern, who has practiced dentistry for 40 years, took a stand against the so-called ideologically-driven "bias training," arguing that it is unsupported by scientific evidence and infringes on the rights of medical professionals.
The lawsuit hinges on Whitmer’s executive order aimed at "improving equity in the delivery of healthcare," which seems more about enforcing compliance with progressive ideologies than safeguarding patient care. Experts have long questioned the scientific validity of implicit bias and its purported connection to healthcare disparities, labeling such training as ineffective and, at times, counterproductive.
Wildern's legal team, representing him through the Pacific Legal Foundation, asserts that LARA's rule lacks any legitimate statutory authority and serves only to regulate the "subjective states of mind" of healthcare providers. "This is about protecting our medical professionals from being coerced into adopting radical viewpoints," Wildern stated in his complaint.
Whitmer’s administration has ramped up enforcement, reportedly launching over 132 investigations against healthcare professionals who have opted out of the training. This aggressive approach led many to believe the state is more focused on ideological conformity than actual healthcare delivery.
Beyond the lawsuit in Michigan, a companion case has emerged in California, where the Pacific Legal Foundation is fighting against similar mandates. California's laws require that all continuing medical education programs for physicians include curriculum on implicit bias, a measure that has drawn ire from medical advocacy groups and professionals who see it as another layer of government exertion into personal beliefs.
In light of these developments, some medical institutions are beginning to re-evaluate their own diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Notably, Vanderbilt University Medical Center recently announced the elimination of its DEI programs in compliance with Trump-era directives.
The growing pushback against these mandates may signal a turning point. As medical professionals unite to reclaim their autonomy, it is clear that a dialogue on the limits of government intervention in healthcare is more critical than ever.
As patriotic Americans stand up for the principles of free thought and professional integrity, they send a resounding message that ideological constraints have no place in the practice of medicine.
Sources:
justthenews.com
nypost.com
basedunderground.com
Latest News