Posted on 08/19/2008 5:30:23 PM PDT by kellynla
California physicians may not refuse treatment to patients based on their sexual orientation even if it violates their religious beliefs, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
[[Benitez081908.jpg]]In a unanimous decision, the high court said two Vista physicians who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian from Oceanside because their religious convictions prohibited such procedures for unmarried persons could be sued for violating the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, reversing an appellate court that had ruled otherwise.
“Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no,” said the unanimous court.
Writing for the court, Justice Joyce Kennard said doctors may refuse to perform a particular procedure for all patients, but could not single out patients based on sexual orientation and refuse them treatment. Kennard mentioned a 2004 state Supreme Court ruling that forced Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees in its health coverage plans. In that case, the court ruled Catholic Charities was not covered by the law’s exemption for religious employers because it provides services and hires staff who are not Catholics.
The California Catholic Conference had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the physicians. The two doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of North Coast Women's Care Medical Group of Vista, were sued in San Diego Superior Court in 2001 by Guadalupe Benitez. Benitez claimed the physicians refused to artificially inseminate her after 11 months of fertility treatments when she told them she was a lesbian. Benitez argues that the doctors violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
ping
Why did she tell the doctors she was a lesbian? Follow the money....emotional suffering, all of that stuff, you know.
So I guess they can't refuse to inseminate a male homosexual either?
How the He!! was she being inseminated during the first eighteen months of fertility treatments?
Simple answer - you move your practice to a state that does not step on your rights as a Doctor and as a US Citizen.
State Law v. Bill of Rights, and the BOR loses? That's a ruling destined to be overturned.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Pity the poor babies born into this crap.
It has got to have an effect on them.
Of course that “effect” will be labeled “normal”.
We’re going to have a world of weirdos from all this.
Glad I won’t be here.
Simple solution, really, stop inseminating and go into a different practice.
2. DOES HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZATION CONFORM TO THE DIGNITY OF THE COUPLE AND TO THE TRUTH OF MARRIAGE?
Through IVF and ET and heterologous artificial insemination, human conception is achieved through the fusion of gametes of at least one donor other than the spouses who are united in marriage. Heterologous artificial fertilization is contrary to the unity of marriage, to the dignity of the spouses, to the vocation proper to parents, and to the child's right to be conceived and brought into the world in marriage and from marriage.(36) Respect for the unity of marriage and for conjugal fidelity demands that the child be conceived in marriage; the bond existing between husband and wife accords the spouses, in an objective and inalienable manner, the exclusive right to become father and mother solely through each other.(37) Recourse to the gametes of a third person, in order to have sperm or ovum available, constitutes a violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a grave lack in regard to that essential property of marriage which is its unity. Heterologous artificial fertilization violates the rights of the child; it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personal identity. Furthermore, it offends the common vocation of the spouses who are called to fatherhood and motherhood: it objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity; it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood and responsibility for upbringing. Such damage to the personal relationships within the family has repercussions on civil society: what threatens the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder and injustice in the whole of social life. These reasons lead to a negative moral judgment concerning heterologous artificial fertilization: consequently fertilization of a married woman with the sperm of a donor different from her husband and fertilization with the husband's sperm of an ovum not coming from his wife are morally illicit. Furthermore, the artificial fertilization of a woman who is unmarried or a widow, whoever the donor may be, cannot be morally justified.
The desire to have a child and the love between spouses who long to obviate a sterility which cannot be overcome in any other way constitute understandable motivations; but subjectively good intentions do not render heterologous artificial fertilization conformable to the objective and inalienable properties of marriage or respectful of the rights of the child and of the spouses.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, >Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation (Donum vitae)), 22 Feb 1987.
Bottom line: I don't know why the California Catholic Conference is speaking out in support of this doctor. What she is doing is immoral anyway, regardless if it's for a couple of lesbians or for a married (heterosexual) couple.
Can a State be forced to secede?
Or they should open an office in Nevada or Oregon and perform them there beyond the reach of CA Courts.
L
We only have 1.5 million people exhibiting decades of insanity.
California is the champion.
If you can’t perform the duties of your chosen profession, find another one. This goes for doctors, pharmacists, and Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis.
God knew. And the Catholic Church knew. But in the secular world, it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
So - who told those prospective doctors when they were entering medical school, and when they were graduation and preparing for practice, that they might be forced to perform procedures that fly directly in the face of their faith?
I see this somewhat akin to a Doctor being forced to perform abortions.
I can understand a doctor being compelled to perform life-saving procedures, but abortion and fertility treatments are neither.
You do realize fertility is a specialty? This isn’t some 6th year physician on his night shift being forced to knock up a lesbian. Be real.
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.