Posted on 05/20/2008 4:36:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
Sacramento, CA (LifeNews.com) -- The California Supreme Court recently issued a narrow 4-3 decision that made sexual orientation a “suspect classification” deserving of heightened protection. The controversial decision may impact more than marriage issues and could cause concerns for pro-life medical professionals.
While the legal repercussions of this case are not yet known, Denise Burke, a staff attorney with Americans United for Life, says they could be far-reaching.
She worries pro-life doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others who don't want to participate in practices such as abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research could be adversely affected.
"We may soon have the chance to evaluate how far this liberal court is willing to go in advancing a progressive social agenda and undermining the right of the people to decide important issues and govern themselves," she said.
Burke points to another case the court is considering that could further the sexual orientation decision.
The case involves two Christian physicians at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group who would not artificially inseminate a woman, Ms. Benitez, an unmarried lesbian, because of her marital status.
Benitez filed suit even though the physicians referred her to an alternative provider (who successfully performed the procedure) and paid the costs associated with her transfer to the new provider.
The woman claims the doctors refused to treat her because she is a lesbian and that decision amounts to illegal discrimination.
More to the point for pro-life physicians, Burke says "Benitez and her attorneys have also argued that the physicians have no right to assert their consciences as a defense to the claims in the lawsuit."
That's the same sort of conscience right that compels pro-life medical professionals to say they should opt out of anti-life practices.
In the Benitez case, a lower court disagreed with her contentions and Burke said it "ruled that the physicians had every right to assert their constitutionally-protected rights of conscience as a defense in the case."
Benitez appealed and the case is now on its way to the state's high court.
"This case now pits the long-established federal and state constitutional rights of healthcare providers to practice according to their consciences against the new determination of the California Supreme Court," Burke explained.
"At worst, the court could use its analysis in the marriage case to undermine healthcare rights of conscience. Specifically, the court could find that a physician’s right of conscience is trumped by the right of patients to demand certain procedures," she said.
A poor ruling in the case could force doctors to engage in abortions regardless of the physicians moral or religious views against them.
"In doing so, the Court would likely find that medicine is not a service but a commodity and that the patient is entitled to receive what he or she wants without regard to the physician’s ethics, morals or religious beliefs," Burke says.
"This would be an unprecedented and incredibly dangerous decision for patients and healthcare providers, ultimately undermining the quality and availability of healthcare in California while eviscerating important constitutional rights," Burke concludes.
Related web sites: Americans United for Life - http://www.aul.org
The courts out there will go farther to the left than we can possibly imagine.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
All of these issues are of the same cloth; one minor “victory” opens the door for the next.
Why people can’t see the incremental destruction of American society (which was founded as a Christian nation) is beyond me. Grrrrr!
>> A poor ruling in the case could force doctors to engage in abortions regardless of the physicians moral or religious views against them.
Such a ruling would strain the tenets of civility.
What are they going to do when a bunch of doctors flee California for lower taxes and religious freedom?
I do see that those public officials who perform civil marriage for the state might have to choose whether or not they want to keep that part of their jobs. I can envision laws and rules allowing those who have the right to perform marriages be allowed to not perform them for anyone, if they won't perform them for everyone.
The downward slide.... is there a bottom?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
An insufficient number of doctors will do this.
Deserted Island test = a person is entitled to consider as a right, any behavior they can engage in alone on a deserted island. Speech doesn't require a listener, religion doesn't require a building, etc.
I'm recall other cases, from different jurisdictions, have shown a predilection of the courts going against religious freedom when it comes to pharmacists filling prescriptions for RU-486 or refusing to perform abortions. I don't necessarily agree with that determination but this has nothing to do with the court's decision on Prop 22.
Take note that only ONE of the seven CA justices is a Democrat appointee.
Interesting “test” you propose. I’ll have to give that some thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.