Calif.: Docs Can't Deny Care To Lesbians

Top Court Rules Doctors Can't Invoke Moral Objections To Refuse Treatment To Gays, Lesbians

(AP)  California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

The law was originally designed to prevent hotels, restaurants and other public services from refusing to serve patrons because of their race. The Legislature has since expanded it to cover characteristics such as age and sexual orientation.

"It was an awful thing to go through," Benitez said. "It was very painful — the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family."

Benitez has given birth to three children through artificial insemination — Gabriel, 6, and twin daughters, Sophia and Shane, who turn 3 this weekend. She is raising them in Oceanside with her longtime partner, Joanne Clark.

Jennifer Pizer, Benitez's attorney, said that the ruling was "a victory for public health" and that she expected it to have nationwide influence.

"It was clear and emphatic that discrimination has no place in doctors' offices," Pizer said.

The ruling was unanimous and a succinct 18 pages, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing marriage between same-sex couples.

Robert Tyler, one of the lawyers for the clinic, said the ruling advanced the Supreme Court's "radical agenda" and would help the campaign supporting a November ballot initiative that seeks to once again ban gay marriage in California.

"The Supreme Court's desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about," said Tyler, who leads the nonprofit Advocates for Faith and Freedom in Murrieta, Calif.

The Supreme Court did order a trial court to consider whether the Christian doctors were allowed to refuse inseminating Benitez because she was unmarried. The Legislature in 2006 amended the law to bar discrimination based on marital status, but it's unclear whether the doctors could legally withhold treatment in 2000.

The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide variety of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from gay rights activists, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.

The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.

[papabc]

If the DR really does not want to treat Queer Women that he/she should not have to. Might be a moral thing or the Dr might feel being Gay is Just Plain to strange.

There are enough Drs that will treat queer People so why go to one that does not wish to treat you? Dr should not be forced.

[honestabe8]

Artificial insemination is such hypocrisy in regard to lesbianism. They want the result of heterosexual, normal, relationships with a man
Posted by noseonurface

No, they just want a child.

[rixmix98]

stay in where you fit in..these effing ho mos are so effing insecure that need to the law to make them secure..

Posted by libsluv2spit at 12:14 AM : Aug 20, 2008


Are you drunk?

[keithle1]

By the way, what''s the divorce rate among the heterosexuals? Adam & Eve. The ones that go on & on about the "sanctity of marriage." Focus On The Family. Family First. Family Forever. Mom & Pop & the kids rule. *** & single people fornicating must die. Blah, blah, blah.

[keithle1]

Sorry. I didn''t mean to use the four-letter word "D I C K" in front of God-fearing Christian women.

[keithle1]

Jesus would do the same thing. You know he would, people. Jesus didn''t love everybody. Heck, no. He would pick & choose. Sometimes it depended on his mood. Praise the Lord!

It''s in the bible. Our precious bible which is the word of God. Every word in it is true. It all happened. Marriage is a man & a woman. Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. Anything else is an abomination! These people could be heterosexuals if they wanted to. They''re just not trying hard enough. They enjoy being different.

Why shouldn''t people be entitled to shove their religion down someone else''s throat?

But when someone in your family is homosexual then everything changes. Then the most fervent bible-puncher has to back pedal. A good example is ***
"Snuggle Bear" Cheney whose daughter is a lesbian. What''s he gonna do? Disown her? Never see her again? Nope.

[dmhphils]

Artificial insemination is such hypocrisy in regard to lesbianism. They want the result of heterosexual, normal, relationships with a man, but don''t want the man, and don''t want to admit that there is something very wrong with them spiritually because at the core of their being, they are women, not men.

[dmhphils]

My Gosh, their attorney looks like Sylverter Stalone.

[libsluv2spit]

"religious beliefs"... Oy vey. Run for the hills.

"You say you want birth control, miss? Well, I''''m sorry but I''''m a Catholic & I don''''t believe in contraception. I''''m not going to give it to you.
I hope you will respect my religious beliefs. Why
don''''t you came back in seven hours when my shift ends?
Have a blessed day."

Posted by Keithle1 at 10:47 PM : Aug 19, 2008
+ report abuse
*******

well leave to these fa ggots, they would soon insist that church puts condom machines in thier men''s room..

stay in where you fit in..these effing ho mos are so effing insecure that need to the law to make them secure..

[libsluv2spit]

i have ONE question..why must these RUG MUNCHERS insist on a ''christian'' fertility clinic???

[keithle1]

It''s funny to hear Christians PRETEND that they''re persecuted! Oh, boo hoo. I feel for ya. You have got it sooooooo bad here in the USA. You have to worship underground in secret. Oh, the humanity.

[keithle1]

"religious beliefs"... Oy vey. Run for the hills.

"You say you want birth control, miss? Well, I''m sorry but I''m a Catholic & I don''t believe in contraception. I''m not going to give it to you.
I hope you will respect my religious beliefs. Why
don''t you came back in seven hours when my shift ends?
Have a blessed day."

[dan9111]

So, legally telling them that they are bound to obey the law is violence. Astounding.

Posted by WiccanTexan

That is a play on words. Of course `telling them` is not violence. But `telling them` is not what the court says, they are threatening using force in addition to telling. Forcing them while these people protest nonviolently, yes that is blatantly violent. That is why liberals are like religious bigots, they think the law itself should advocate force instead of protection from it.

The same was true with slavery. The slaveowner cannot effectively use words to persuade while arguing force is the proper way to get cooperation. It is a contradiction.

[wiccantexan]

So, legally telling them that they are bound to obey the law is violence. Astounding.

[dan9111]

So, you''''re basically implying that *** would react violently if denied? On what grounds and precedents do you base this?

Posted by WiccanTexan

They already have. It is logically established. It was admitted the doctors are forced. So they are employing a violent agent to get their way. It is not OK to initiate violence. If you disagree and believe violence is the right way to do things, then I would imagine using this nonviolent discussion seems kind of silly.

On the other hand, if you believe initiation of violence is wrong, then first one must realize that the doctors who refuse were doing so nonviolently. That is no cause to threaten them using what is clearly described as force. The error of the courts conclusion is inescapable.

[wiccantexan]

"That means they will be forced. If they refuse, there will be letters and then costumed guys with guns will react."

So, you''re basically implying that *** would react violently if denied? On what grounds and precedents do you base this?

[dan9111]

"California''s highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to *** and lesbians"

That means they will be forced. If they refuse, there will be letters and then costumed guys with guns will react. Nobody denies it. It is violent coercion with a ritual threat happening first. If you tried coercing a convenience store the same way, demanding your style of service, following it up with firearms, you would be called an armed robber.

The religious bigots and the liberals have something in common, blindness to violence.

[wiccantexan]

I don''t see specifically here where using violence was advocated or implied. Do you have another source?

[dan9111]

The father was never counselled. But, right it should have stopped at the first moment. If they require the presence of the mother, they should also require the presence of the father. That is the only way to not discriminate.

Either way, there is no rationale for threatening violence to ensure a job is done. Even the US Supreme Court has sustained under Castle Rock v. Gonzales and several other cases that police are under no obligation to defend citizens from crime. That is, they can with the abstain from doing their job, even if human life is under threat. To say lesbians not only have a constitutional right to deliberate fatherless child-raising, but also to coerce involuntary assistance to make it happen, that is way out there on the whack-o-meter.

[wiccantexan]

"The fact that fatherlessness is known to cause problems, and the abuse the child experiences being denied their genetic parents, that is to be avoided if at all possible."

My older daughter, raised primarily by a single mother (me) and currently a successful social worker with a Master''s degree, would beg to disagree with you. Can you show concrete statistics that fatherlessness equals abuse?

But regardless, what I still want to know is why the doctors were so negligent in counseling both parents before the procedures began. This would have easily shown that there were two women involved, and let the doctors decline before time, $$ and mental/emotional input were spent. They''re trying to excuse shoddy medical practices under "religious bias."