Milwaukee police union calls for criminal charges against Froedtert Hospital staff that deny armed officer's care
The Milwaukee Police Association is calling for obstruction charges against Froedtert Hospital staff for demanding that police officers remove their firearm when on the premises.
Froedtert ThedaCare Health apologized in an April 16 statement to a Milwaukee police officer who was seeking care at the Froedtert facility while on-duty and was turned away for carrying a duty firearm.
The apology came in response to a letter from about two dozen Republican state lawmakers calling on Froedtert to review its policies and condemning the health system for what they called "indefensible" denial of care.
Froedtert clarified that weapons in the possession of "authorized security and law enforcement officers" are permitted on its premises.
"We are working to clarify our policies and educate our team members to help ensure this does not happen again," Bryce Gartland, president of the south region for Froedtert ThedaCare Health, said in the April 16 letter.
When asked about department policy for removing an officer's service weapon while on-duty, the Milwaukee Police Department said it doesn't have a policy for this specific situation. "However, in general, officers are responsible for safeguarding their equipment (to include firearms)," an email from MPD said.
The police union representing rank-and-file officers released a statement April 17, saying criminal charges against hospital staff should be considered.
"It should go without saying that police officers deserve to be treated with dignity, just like everyone else who seeks medical treatment. But clearly we need to say it," the statement says.
"Criminal activity, violent behavior, and dangerous situations don't stop at the doors of a hospital. Police officers carry firearms because their job demands that they be prepared for anything — at any moment. It's about duty, safety, and the reality that, when they wear the uniform and badge, they face threats others don't. It's about preparedness, and the unfortunate realities of the job. Police officers are often targeted by individuals who wish to do harm to law enforcement, whether it's retaliation, anti-police sentiment, or a desire to commit a crime without intervention, the uniform alone can make someone a target.
"We call on Froedtert — and all area health systems — to know and better understand their policies when it comes to police officers carrying their firearms. Police officers carry firearms in sensitive locations not because they want to ignore rules, but because their job requires them to be prepared for danger — even in places where danger is unexpected."
The union also claims that officers are often restricted access to patients when attempting to conduct investigations. "It is clear that staff at Froedtert facilities have routinely made the jobs of police officers more difficult or even impossible," the union said.
"In the event that this reprehensible conduct continues, we are calling on our colleagues in law enforcement to pursue Obstruction charges against any Froedtert staff who interfere with a police officer in the course of conducting lawful investigations. It's essential to understand that when police officers are conducting a lawful investigation — especially involving evidence collection related to a crime — interference by hospital personnel is not only inappropriate, it also is unlawful."
Froedtert directed the Journal Sentinel to its April 16 letter, which states, "We have reached out to contact the impacted patient and connected with our partners at the Milwaukee Police Department to help ensure a positive relationship and experience for everyone we collectively serve. We look forward to continuing to partner to improve the health and betterment of our communities."
More: Milwaukee police officer injured in shooting released from hospital
Sarah Volpenhein contributed to this report.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee police union calls for charges against Froedtert staff
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act : no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program — would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March . And according to AP VoteCast , about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF , and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
18 People Reacted To Trump Possibly Pardoning Diddy
As you probably know by now, Sean 'Diddy' Combs was indicted in 2024 on federal charges including sex trafficking and racketeering. Recently, HuffPost and BuzzFeed wrote about how Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked the president if he would consider pardoning Diddy. Trump told Doocy, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics, that relationship busted up, from what I read." "I don't know, he didn't tell me that. But I'd read some … nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden." Trump, who once ran in the same wealthy social circles as Diddy, continued, "You know, it's different. You become a much different person when you run for politics, and you do what's right. I could do other things, and I'm sure he'd like me, and I'm sure other people would like me, but it wouldn't be as good for our country." In other words, Trump didn't give a definitive answer on whether he would pardon Diddy. People in the comments had a lot to say on the topic. Here are some of the best replies: "If Diddy is found guilty, he should not be pardoned. Stop pardoning people who were found or plead guilty." —cole Melton "When considering whether to pardon someone, Trump couldn't care less about whether a person is guilty. As long as the person has some kind words for Trump and/or helped Trump get even richer, the person has a good chance of getting a pardon." "Ask Trump voters if they voted for this corruption of the pardon system."—Carl Hayman "The fact that Trump commented on pardoning Diddy during an active, ongoing trial…I am just speechless. It completely undermines the entire justice system." "Always follow the money. Trump is using the power to pardon as an ATM. He only cares about the next money making opportunity, not law and order, justice, the Constitution, or keeping the guilty in jail. And most assuredly not you and me." —d icard "Even MAGA people on Fox and Breitbart are exploding over this. They hate this idea. Democrats need to keep the topic of Trump possibly pardoning Diddy front and center. Talk about it whenever they can. Keep it in the headlines." —TACO Trump "He says, 'I would certainly look at the facts.' And then what? Ignore them like he did with the results of the 2020 election? It used to be that if you wanted to win a high political office, you had to have character. Now all it takes (at least if you're a Republican) is to be a character." —Carl Olson "'You are the company you keep' has never been more true than as it relates to these two." "There is no justice system if anyone can simply prove love to their president and get a pardon." —Cory Crete"Pardons are now for sale."—James Gettings "Well, being liked is obviously the most important factor in any pardon." —Les Vogt "This isn't just grotesque; it's the rot made visible. Trump floating a pardon for a man indicted for sex trafficking, while reminiscing about party invitations and wounded egos, is less a statement of justice than a confession of moral bankruptcy. It's not about innocence or guilt — it's about whether someone 'used to really like' him." "In Trump's world, the law isn't sacred; it's a velvet rope outside a nightclub, waved aside with the casual shrug of a man picking names from a guest list."—Miles West "If our Republic is still standing in a few years, a different Congress must amend the Constitution to limit presidential pardons." "No more presidential pardons. I would let them commute death sentences, but nothing more. Enough of this abuse. These people had their day in court and have had chances to appeal. I don't trust anyone with that power anymore. Get rid of it." —Charles James "It's so weird (but so typical) that Trump has to tell everyone that Diddy 'used to like me a lot,' as if that's the most relevant thing about the issue. What a terrible thing it must be to live a life actually believing inside that you're incapable of being loved. That's the overriding reality that has made Trump who he is — an immensely insecure, flawed man." —David Hardy "'When you're president you do what's right.' I can't believe he said that because he certainly doesn't abide by that whatsoever." —Jenny Tayla "Whenever he talks about anyone — and I mean anyone — he always comments on if that person likes him or not. Narcissistic dictator." "I pray that Trump does not pardon Diddy. He's just as bad as Jeffrey Epstein and R. Kelly." —smileyzombie492 "Trump is sans empathy. He is a woman-hating dumpster fire." —jamesnylan And finally, "At least he didn't say he would. I was relieved to not read even that. The bar is low. 😭" The article people commented on originally appeared on HuffPost.
