Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Calif. Supreme Court: Doctors cannot refuse IVF to lesbians
08.18.2008 2:37pm EDT
(San Francisco, California) In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that doctors cannot withhold care to gays and lesbians based on their religious beliefs.
The case began in 2001 when Guadalupe Benitez filed suit against Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton after they refused to artificially inseminate her, claiming to do so would violate their religious beliefs.
A lower court ruled that the doctors could not use religion as a defense, but in 2005 a state appeals court struck down the ruling ,saying that the doctors were within their rights because they based their decision on Benitez’s unmarried status and that discrimination based on marital status is not prohibited by state law.
Represented by Lambda Legal Benitez appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Benitez alleges that after she had received 11 months of preparatory treatment from the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group clinic in San Diego, and at “the critical and brief moment when Benitez needed to be inseminated,” Brody and Fenton refused to inseminate her.
Both Brody and Fenton said that because of their personal religious beliefs about gay people, they would not administer the treatment Benitez had been promised. In court papers the doctors also said they object to treating unmarried heterosexual women and they claim that their fundamentalist Christian beliefs exempt them from California’s civil rights laws.
The doctors contended they denied treatment because Benitez and her registered domestic partner of 15 years were not married. Lambda legal maintained she was denied because of her sexual orientation, not her marital status.
When the appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, Lambda argued that marital status was being used as a smokescreen.
“Doctors with antigay religious beliefs are not excused from obeying the laws that govern all of us,” said Lambda legal attorney Jennifer C. Pizer at the time. “That our client’s doctors felt that they could defy well-established California law and medical ethics is very worrisome for all of us in a civil society.”
I hate to break this to you Censoredagain but many of those Christian Fundamentalists would like nothing more to make this a 100% Christian nation governed by them and their interpretation of the bible. The only freedoms they want are those they can regulate.As a Christian myself I find this very disturbing and sickening. We are a nation of different beliefs and customs. One should not trump the other. But those that are on the anti-gay side want nothing more to tell us in the GLBT community what we can and cannot do!
And you mention Hitler? If you remember most people were in shock and in horror that another human being could treat another human being with such contempt and brutality. But our history is filled with such repeated offenses by those in political power.
Yes thank God for the Constitution! And thank God we are not a Theocracy!!
The CSC made a land mark ruling that will be noticed by the entire nation. Great job by Lambda, the LGBT would have suffered a lot more if it were not for their legal stand. As for those doctors attempt at “religious belief”, makes me wonder what religion they are following. Oh wait, many christian’s have turned from the teachings of Christ to their own man made up religions, what was I thinking? The implications of allowing treatment to only those you believe are God worthy would push the United States back to the “Middle Ages” of religious rulers.
Wow! Where did all you socialist and statest get indoctrinated? It seems that no one in America believes in freedom anymore. The state as no right to tell any individual or business person with whom they can associate and or to do business. Except for in emergency situations the medical business along with all other business should have the right to do business with whom they choose not with whom the state chooses. To do so is a violation of freedom of association which is a basic right in the U S Constitution.
In this particular case I would side with the court because the defendants previously treated the plaintiff. If they did not treat her from the start then I would have sided with the defendants.
It is your right to refuse business to anyone for what ever reason and the state should protected that right not take it away from you as it has done. Discrimination is bad for business so let it be dealt with in the free market not by Orwellian leaders.
Freedom is not pretty and it can be down right ugly. If you want to protect your freedom then you also have to protect the freedom of those that do that which you find repugnant. Stop crying about being discriminated against by private entities and do business else where, that is how and why gayborhoods where created in the first place.
I swear the mentality of respondents illustrates how Hitler rose to power. People looking for the government to solve their problems instead of solving them themselves. Kids I hate to break it to you but the government cause more problems than it fixes. The statest government like we have will break your legs then had you a crutch and say “Look I helped you to walk!”.
Please people I hope one day you will choose freedom for all.
The ruling isn’t really about artificial insemination. Or about this particular lesbian and her doctor. There are wider implications here. If the court rules that California’s anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, it’ll open up the floodgates for physicians and pharmacists to refuse treatment whenever they please. That is an unacceptable outcome. What if a white doctor refused to treat an African, Latino, or Asian patient with cancer? What if a Mormon doctor told a dying Episcopalian to take a hike? There are just too many variables to the “religious belief” argument. Anti-discrimination law provides a firewall against this sort of medical malpractice. And there’s no way the court would toss water on that firewall over a relatively minor IVF dispute.
I for one do not want to be treated by anyone that may harbor feelings that being gay is wrong. It really boggles my mind that someone would want a medical provider treating them that may not appreciate them as a person.
I have a primary care physician that is gay. I have a dentist that knows I’m gay and treats me and many of my friends. I receive what I consider to be the worlds best care because they are tolerant. They are tolerant and accepting because they care. I certainly don’t want someone being forced to be tolerant as they would be missing the “care” area.
No one is saying that one’s religious beliefs are wrong! What they are saying is that when you take the oath to be a doctor and you choose to practice..all must be treated equally. You can’t refuse to treat an african-american, latina, lesbian, white, etc. All people are committed to your care. It is ok to have a viewpoint and if you are so against serving all people than you should not serve any. Take IVF out of what you do. The thing is.. if you start deciding who you will help and who you won’t…where does the line get drawn? When do you go too far. I am a very religious person myself and would never think to make the decisions for the doctors what I am saying is that there are times when you need to do like Jesus said and love all man as you would love yourself.
When you are working at a job that provides services to the general public, you’re individual belief systems do not then supercede the rites of the public thet you serve. If you have an issue with providing services to any select group in this country, you should not be working at a job that is open to the general public. The people that will make an issue of this are those who believe they have a legal rite to impose their views on any group of people they see fit under the guise of “religious beliefs”. Notice how it appears only GLBT people fall victim to this – because they know full well this is the last grouping of people left in the country that are still vulnerable to “legally sanctioned discrimination”. This is an important and necessary victory. IF you don’t like GLBT people, don’t take a job where you will have to interact with them. Coddle your personal bigotry in private.
Of course the cry will go out to all those that are fundamentalist/ conservative evangelical that their religious liberties are being trampled on by the gays again. We should expect a fight about this. It has been said over the net the past several years that pharmacists are refusing to give birth control to women because of their religious beliefs.
What is truly scary is if fundamentalist doctors are allowed to withhold treatment based on someone’s sexual orientation in order to uphold their religious beliefs. If a doctor believed being gay is a sin and refuses to treat a gay car accident patient (assuming he found out he was gay) based solely on that premise alone, then we will have a lot of lawsuits if permanent physical damage or death results because of it.
Would these doctors demand the patient repent before they were treated?
I’m sure that many of us don’t realize how very significant this victory really is. Years ago, whem my then doctor told me that my being gay was sinful and dangerous, I found a different doctor. (Oddly enough, other than a few family members, this doc was the only professional who had difficulty when I came out to him.) Fortunately, I found a wonderful new doctor who also happens to be gay, and a great friend. Still, Lambda Legal ROCKS !!!
I am certainly glad to read this. The basic civil rites of ALL Americans have to preceed any individuals select religious beliefs. Rites such as being able to obtain and keep a job, a home and to obtain good and sustainable health care are certainly rites that cannot be set aside at whim because of someone’s bigoted belief system.
First a comment to Mike: If the text is too small, click on View |Text Size | Increase.
The practice of medicine is regulated by law. Just as is the practice of architecture, pharmacy and other professions. If a person thinks they do not have to follow the law for religious reasons, they should move to a country where their own religion is the law. Maybe try Nigeria or Angola. They cannot rewrite the laws at their pleasure to suit their bigoted beliefs. They knew this before they did the schooling and applied for their licenses.
Of course it was unanimous. The CSC is an extremely pro-government court. With the exception of the same-sex marriage issue (which divided the justices sharply), the California Supreme Court has traditionally been very deferential to legislative intent, as well as the doctrine of separation of powers. The legislature has clearly decided that denying medical treatment to gays and lesbians on the basis of “religious belief” is a crime. And there was little doubt that the court would not overturn the judgment of lawmakers.
The Doctors would have had a much stronger case if they had not spent 11 months doing preparatory treatment. Even though the law dictates equal treatment, I wouldn’t want to be a patient of a Doctor who put his/her religious beliefs above my equal rights. The degree of care would certainly be less.
THIS COMMENT IS DIRECTED TO THE 365 GAY.COM STAFF INVOLVED IN WRITING THESE STORIES
I AM NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO READ THIS STORY, IF YOU INSIST ON MAKING TEXT SO SMALL I HAVE TO STARE (AND CAUSE EYESTRAIN) AT IT TO READ IT, THEN I AM NOT GOING TO TRY. EITHER A STORY IS NORMAL SIZE TEXT (LIKE YOUR OTHER STORIES ARE WHICH MAKES THEM EASY TO READY) OR I WILL SKIP READING THEM ENTIRELY
If dr’s can’t treat all citizens equally..then THEY are in the wrong field!