CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,288
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Calif.: Docs Can't Deny Care To Lesbians

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 18, 2008 (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.
 
So artificial insemination is now equated with medically necessary treatment.

Only in California.:coocoo:
 
Viagra's medically necessary :shrug:

How so?


"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."

This woman has clearly been drinking the left-liberal Kool Aid in large quantities. There is no such thing as a RIGHT to become a mother or have a family. Now, this being California, the activist law courts have backed her up all the way and decreed that, yes, there is such a thing. A case like this wouldn't work in most jurisdictions (hopefully).
 
This woman has clearly been drinking the left-liberal Kool Aid in large quantities. There is no such thing as a RIGHT to become a mother or have a family. Now, this being California, the activist law courts have backed her up all the way and decreed that, yes, there is such a thing. A case like this wouldn't work in most jurisdictions (hopefully).


Have you read the case at all? Do you realize that this was not decided on whether she has a right to become a mother and in fact had nothing to do with it?
 
I think the point is that she has an equal right to be a mother/have a family that a straight woman has-whatever that right is.

Viagra is seemingly medically necessary according to insurance companies. I don't think you have to prove what you're using it for.
 
Well lucky for us, doctors are licensed by the state and subject to the state laws rather than their own whims.
 
That's not really the way I view it. Doctors should be guided by their moral conscience.

Well I'm glad you aren't a doctor.

Where would you draw the line? Deny them birth control, force mothers to die of complication due to birth, don't allow insemination to Muslims, stop treatment of AIDS victims...
 
This woman has clearly been drinking the left-liberal Kool Aid in large quantities. There is no such thing as a RIGHT to become a mother or have a family. Now, this being California, the activist law courts have backed her up all the way and decreed that, yes, there is such a thing. A case like this wouldn't work in most jurisdictions (hopefully).

Financeguy, what exactly is your background with California state discrimination law that qualifies you to deride their decision as an "activist law court"? Are you a lawyer there?
 
You are having a laugh. You make it sound like it was treatment for an ulcer or something.

Seriously, have you read this article at all? Do you realize that it has NOTHING to do with classifying IVF as a medical treatment?

It's like you're just ignoring completely the basis of this case and the legal finding.
 
That's not really the way I view it. Doctors should be guided by their moral conscience.

And if it was against a Doctor's moral conscience to treat a patient that was:
black,
Muslim,
obese,
a smoker,
a meat eater,
a Marxist,
A Scientologist,
an atheist?


A Doctor's claim of moral conscience can be many things.
 
Even if their moral conscience lets them deny treatment to people based on sexual orientation?

Do you want doctors to have the right not to perform plastic surgery on young girls because they're uncomfortable performing the surgery for reasons of conscience?

This isn't a black and white case. No doctor should be allowed to decide to harm (or allow harm to come to) a patient because of an issue of conscience, but if its not a life/death issue there is more room for discussion.
 
Do you want doctors to have the right not to perform plastic surgery on young girls because they're uncomfortable performing the surgery for reasons of conscience?

I don't know.

My initial reaction is that it isn't their decision, it's the decision of the girl and her parents.

But this decision wasn't about minors. It was about adults.
 
This isn't a black and white case. No doctor should be allowed to decide to harm (or allow harm to come to) a patient because of an issue of conscience, but if its not a life/death issue there is more room for discussion.


If a Doctor said "I refuse to treat Jewish people, for non-emergency matters, out of a matter conscience".

That would seem reasonable to you ?
 
Why the fuck would they be in the fertility business if they do not want to make women pregnant?


I love pregnant women. That leads to more breastfeeding threads....which I like too.
 
Why the fuck would they be in the fertility business if they do not want to make women pregnant?

They are not Doctors, first


but instruments of God's Holy work on earth, first.



Evil doers, should just bleed out. :shrug:



(besides, if God wanted Lesbians to have babies he would have given some of them penises.)
 
Thank you for clarifying...

Hey now that I turned 40 two weeks or so ago, I really feel close to you.:hyper:
 
Back
Top Bottom