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.”
Johan said: “OK, just saying it is unconstitutional doesn’t actually make it unconstitutional.” True
“Only the judiciary can make such a determination.” No I did make that determination myself, But the government only recognizes the judiciary on that matter. It’s like same gender marriage…. there are same gender marriages in all 50 states the issue is recognition.
“You have to convince the CSC (and ultimately, the USSC) that these laws are unconstitutional. And with all due respect, Libertarians have failed to do that over the years. Repeatedly.” True! But just because the Judiciary says otherwise does not mean that they are correct it just means their determinations are recognized by the government as being correct. Truth and recognition are two independent elements.
“By your own admission, America has a fascination with “socialism” that pre-dates FDR. Thus, you’re in affect saying that socialism is deeply rooted in the nation’s history, tradition, and collective conscience. Are you sure you want to draw attention to that?” I did not say fascination although many do hold a fascination with it but I cannot say it is a majority or a minority because I have not polled the people. So I don’t know. Define “deeply rooted” I can not argue with rooted because that is so self evident. However your qualification of deeply rooted is arguable. Freedom once was deeply rooted but more and more people are willing to give it up for security rather it is financial security or personal security the once great American tradition of individualism is dieing like an unattended house plant.
” You’re not saying anything that resonates with the American people.” It is a sad commentary on the American people when the ideals of Freedom and Individualism does not resonate with them. Honestly I think it is the concept of Individual Responsibility that doesn’t resonate because everyone wants to be a victim.
“Politics is not just about windbaggery and bluster, you know. Sometimes winning is the point. And say what you will about the Republicans and Democrats, they’ve been winning for two centuries.” You are right Libertarians care more about being right then winning. We care more about being honest and hold true to individual liberty then about being winning.
#
OK, just saying it is unconstitutional doesn’t actually make it unconstitutional. Only the judiciary can make such a determination. You have to convince the CSC (and ultimately, the USSC) that these laws are unconstitutional. And with all due respect, Libertarians have failed to do that over the years. Repeatedly.
By your own admission, America has a fascination with “socialism” that pre-dates FDR. Thus, you’re in affect saying that socialism is deeply rooted in the nation’s history, tradition, and collective conscience. Are you sure you want to draw attention to that? In the Supreme Court, such an admission would be tantamount to putting up a white flag.
And that’s the problem with the Libertarian movement. You’re saying what you think is “right” in a very abrasive and unproductive way. But you’re not saying anything the courts want to hear. You’re not saying anything that resonates with the American people. Politics is not just about windbaggery and bluster, you know. Sometimes winning is the point. And say what you will about the Republicans and Democrats, they’ve been winning for two centuries.
I would be very interested to know what qualifies any religion as a “valid” religion? The larger and longer standing ones have claimed validity for their own beliefs and self-servingly portray anything new as a cult. Maybe I can start a religion that considers people who believe in mythologies from thousands of years ago as unstable (as so many of them clearly are). Then, should I encounter them in my day to day life – I can cry “religious discrimination” when I am forced to interact with them!
Let these doctors go work in a Seminary if they want to do god’s work. They sound very unholy and judgemental to me!!
Unfortunately, from a GLBT perspective, neither candidate is 100% ideal – but there are unquestionably huge differences in the positions they hold with regard to out community. The DNC and likley the RNC platforms could hardly be more different in that regard. I was more for HIllary than Barack, but he is still light years ahead of McSame.
If doctors are going to dispense or not dispense care, based on their religious beliefs, then they are part of what will destroy this great nation.
If doctors feel that they can’t treat all patients equally, because of religious beliefs, then they should find a new line of work. What is next – the salesman somewhere refusing to sell something to a Jew, or a waitress in a restaurant refusing to serve a black. The principle of non discrimination is well established, and religion is NOT above the law.
We are not going to go back to the dark ages.
OK, just saying it is unconstitutional doesn’t actually make it unconstitutional. Only the judiciary can make such a determination. You have to convince the CSC (and ultimately, the USSC) that these laws are unconstitutional. And with all due respect, Libertarians have failed to do that over the years. Repeatedly.
By your own admission, America has a fascination with “socialism” that pre-dates FDR. Thus, you’re in affect saying that socialism is deeply rooted in the nation’s history, tradition, and collective conscience. Are you sure you want to draw attention to that? In the Supreme Court, such an admission would be tantamount to putting up a white flag.
And that’s the problem with the Libertarian movement. You’re saying what you think is “right” in a very abrasive and unproductive way. But you’re not saying anything the courts want to hear. You’re not saying anything that resonates with the American people. Politics is not just about windbaggery and bluster, you know. Sometimes winning is the point. And say what you will about the Republicans and Democrats, they’ve been winning for two centuries.
Quasi Said:
“Why must doctors, lawyers and plumbers have to go to school and obtain a special occupational governmental license, in addition to a business license? ” So the government can fleece them for more money
Quasi Said: “I am aware about numerous lawsuits where prejudice was outlawed when a business exhibited discrimination with the public, even though it was privately-owned, versus a publicly-traded corporation.” Those laws which you speak of and that let the lawsuits go forward are a violation of freedom of association. A person to include doctors should have the right to discriminate for any and all reasons their little hearts desire. Like I said before discrimination is bad for business and let the Free Market work it out.
Quasi Said: “We need to be able to judge how we will be treated sooner than later, and how our money will be spent and used to help or hurt us.” I am in complete accord on this point.
Quasi Said: “In any case we have a new use for ‘Let the buyer beware!’”I do believe in full disclosure.
Quasi Said: “I think it is quite plain we all work for ourselves. I surely do not work to keep my neighbor versus myself, and certainly not for the businessman from whom I purchase good or services. But I do vote with my dollars.” Watch out there Quasi you starting to sound like me….Actually under our socialist government you do work about 1/5 of your work time is to support your neighbor or at least someones neighbor.
Choose Freedom. Hmmm!
I hope you understand that “freedom” is not the ability to do as one wishes. There are RULES that go along with freedom. Freedom is NOT “non-interference” by the government or other individuals. I learned that in 9th grade Civic class. In fact, our freedoms are specifically defined by the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Laws and Statutes of the US Congress, the various States and sundry Local Governments. For examples:
I am not permitted to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
I no longer see segregated schools or rest rooms.
I must carry an identification papers and use a passport to travel internationally.
I need a driver’s license, and consent to the laws which apply to all drivers.
My expressed religious beliefs, no matter how deeply I feel about them, cannot trump those rules. I think the CSC ruling is in the same light and sets up those guidelines that make freedom available to all persons.
More over, and more importantly religion is a specific choice. One does NOT need religion to live. Society need children to survive. Survival must trump religion in all cases and supercede religous beliefs. That is the bare bones of this dicussion and the CSC ruling.
Why must doctors, lawyers and plumbers have to go to school and obtain a special occupational governmental license, in addition to a business license? They need to also learn the etiquette of business too.
I am aware about numerous lawsuits where prejudice was outlawed when a business exhibited discrimination with the public, even though it was privately-owned, versus a publically-traded corporation. “Private practice” does not mean “private versus public”; it means it is not directly government funded or is a quasi-government agency or is not publically traded on the stock market.
Must one now ask the businesses about their religious (or other similar) views, and choose a business accordingly? I personally think it is wrong to hide or camoflage ones views as a business person, if it will affect the customers directly. We need to be able to judge how we will be treated sooner than later, and how our money will be spent and used to help or hurt us.
In any case we have a new use for “Let the buyer beware!”
I think it is quite plain we all work for ourselves. I surely do not work to keep my neighbor versus myself, and certainly not for the businessman from whom I purchase good or services. But I do vote with my dollars.
Sheleta Buffet Said:
“… ZIf a doctor wants to put his religious beliefs over the health of the nation, then he should turn in his Med degree and become a priest or preacher.”
That comment would make Stalin very proud only his best pupils would forgo individual freedom for the state.
Sheleta Buffet Said:
“Our LGBT lives are real. Their beliefs are manufactured delusions.” and your point is…. Their beliefs are real to them and that is what reality is, one’s perception. Your comment adds nothing to the argument. You bring no points of reason or rational thought. You can take your lgbt lives to other real doctors. That is the whole point of the free market. If you don’t like one doctor you go to the next or if you get bad service or no service at all you can go to another real doctor. Stop trying to impose your belief system on others. What you are calling for is no better then what the religious right does and is hypocritical to its very core. Fighting evil with evil only brings more evil. Controlling others is evil.
Choose Freedom
Quasi Said:
“Unless advertised otherwise, a doctor is working for the public and the public good”. What do you mean unless otherwise advertised? A reasonable person should know that a doctor in Private Practice is working for themselves not the public. Are plumbers working for the public or for themselves? They are working for the themselves and so too are doctors. So you point “Unless advertised otherwise” is a crock
However, I do agree with your point if a doctor agrees to accept government money then they should abide by government standards. Like I stated earlier about contractual obligations, the state does have the right to enforce them. But like you pointed out you do not know if the fertility clinic in question and the doctors who own it had such obligations. I too admit I do not know either.
I also agree “…that the religious bigots are hypocrites and only use their religion to force their views on other people, unfaily and with great prejudice.” However, I unlike others I support and defend their right to do so; not because I agree with what they are doing. It is because I agree with freedom. The state does not have the right to force anyone’s morality on anyone else.
To Sheleta Buffet:
Thank you for the defense and the additional thought. I and my family are real people. And I have a most difficult time believing in an invisible, silent and absent deity.
BTW, the time delay on posting here made me post this as a separate comment rather than including it with my previous one.
To Censoredagain:
Unless advertised otherwise, a doctor is working for the public and the public good. If a doctor accepts government payments, such as Medicare adn Medicaid, then the doctor is bound by the contractual laws of the nation. I do not know if these particular doctors do so, but I have only found 1 doctor in all my life in Florida, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, New Jersey and California which does not accept such payments. Consequently, they must needs treat all patients equally. If a doctor wants to be a missionary (even in the US), they need to advertise that they are a religious-based organization and abide be religious laws and not secular laws; such organization do exist. If they accept government payments, they must be a secular organization and must forego religious laws. BTW, I am well-versed in government contracts and the legal ramifications of such. Many states also have the same type of laws. And requiring such contractual obligations is not slavery. The doctor can practice their religion otherwise, and they will loose many patients who can only pay via government insurance. But religious or not, they are greedy, and will keep their views quiet else they loose much of their income. More than that, I was trying to point out that the religious bigots are hypocrites and only use their religion to force their views on other people, unfaily and with great prejudice.
TigerTzu Said:
There is a definite lag between the time posted and when it shows up, if at all. In my original post I agreed with you censored, but I also stated that doctors who refuse to treat everyone equally should be required to post their exceptions so that people can make informed choices about those doctors and their care.
I am in complete accord with you on that.