Chapter 7, Subchapter XIX, Section 1396 (F) Reads
Chapter 7, Subchapter XIX, Section 1396 (F) Reads
“Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XIX, § 1396 (f) Observance of religious beliefs
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to require any State which has a plan approved under
this subchapter to compel any person to undergo any medical screening, examination, diagnosis, or
treatment or to accept any other health care or services provided under such plan for any purpose
(other than for the purpose of discovering and preventing the spread of infection or contagious disease
or for the purpose of protecting environmental health), if such person objects (or, in case such
person is a child, his parent or guardian objects) thereto on religious grounds. (Source: Aug. 14,
1935, ch. 531, title XIX, § 1907, as added, Pub. L. 90-248, title II, § 232, Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat.
905.”
It is therefore undisputed that both State and Federal law provide that Good Samaritan
Hospital does not have any legal authority to compel any patient, pregnant mother or her newborn
baby to undergo any medical screening, examination, diagnosis, treatment or “DRUG TESTING”
in reference to Screening tests of newborn infants specifically allows for RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION
“RCW 70.83.020 Screening tests of new born infants. It shall be the duty of the department
of health to require screening tests of all newborn infants before they are discharged from the hospital
for the detection of phenylketonuria and other hertitable or metabolic disorders leading to mental
retardation or physical defects as defined by the state board of health: PROVIDED, That no such test
shall be given to any newborn infant whose parents or guardian object thereto on the grounds that such
tests conflict with their religious tenets and practices.”
It is undisputed that RCW 28A.210.090 specifically provides that my child or newborn baby
pursuant to my philosophical and RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS. The main purpose of the “Doctrine
a battery against that patient for failure to obtain the patients knowledgeable permission. Holt v.
Nelson, 11 Wn.App. 230 (1974); Miller v. Kennedy, 85 Wn.2d 151 (1975); Miller v. Kennedy, 11
Wn.App. 272 (1974); Gates v. Jenson, 92 Wn.2d 246 (1979); ZeBarth v. Swedish Hosp. Med.
Center, 81 Wn.2d 12 (1972); Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, 88 N.W.2d 186; Natanson v.
Kline, 350 P.2d 1093, 354 P.2d 670; Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317
P.2d 170; Mitchell v. Robinson, 334 S.W.2d 11; Woods v. Brumlop, 71 N.M. 221, 337 P.2d 520,
Annot. 79 ALR 2d 1028; Bowars v. Talmadge, 159 So.2d 888; 49 ALR 3d 501-17 (1973).
IF YOUR BABY WAS STOLEN BECAUSE YOU TESTED POSITIVE FOR DRUGS AND YOU
WANT TO SUE THE GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL & THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS, Please
call Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or E-Mail: <[email protected]> or
<[email protected]> See also: <www.ultimateusers.com>