"Well girls, we've got it, and you aren't getting ANY of it!"
Posted on 04/03/2007 10:37:46 AM PDT by Gene Eric
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the right of physicians to refuse to perform medical procedures that violate their sincerely held religious convictions. The brief was filed in a case pending before the California Supreme Court, North Coast Women’s Care v. Benitiz.
In that case Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian, sued two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her—alleging that the doctors discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation in violation of California’s civil rights act. The doctors assert that they cannot be held liable for refusing to provide treatment based upon their sincerely held religious convictions because California’s constitution protects their right to the free exercise of religion. Benitez is represented by the LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, one of the leading organizations promoting the homosexual agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
Wow. The judge actually referred to the higher authority of the Constitution?
Tell the lesbians to use a turkey baster - works just as well and leave the doctors, who have a conscience, alone!!
Well, there is a more natural way to do it......
and cheaper....
Yep. Lezzies, if you want some, you have to earn it the old fashioned way. Take it or leave it.
There may well be good reason(s) why the “old fashioned way” isn’t an option for them.
The old fashioned way may not be an option for Rosie:)
Talk about stranger than fiction - you just couldn't even make stuff like this up.
At least I would hope they can.
Lawyers, CPAs, and other professionals can pick and choose their clients as they see fit -- without revealing the reasons to anyone. Why not doctors?
Now... if these same professionals work for a company or organization that serves the public at-large -- then discrimination may become obvious. Like refusing to do business with or treat Muslims, for example.
It would be best for professionals with strongly held religious, political, or racial opinions to go into private practice.
>> Wow. The judge actually referred to the higher authority of the Constitution?
It’s an opportunistic lawsuit.
Should the woman decide to change her mind a month or two into the pregnancy, would she sue the doctor who refuses to reverse the procedure?
>> It would be best for professionals with strongly held religious, political, or racial opinions to go into private practice.
Of course, Hillary-care could make the a difficult option.
>> Talk about stranger than fiction ...
It’s liberalism.
"Well girls, we've got it, and you aren't getting ANY of it!"
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.