Monday, August 18, 2008


SAN FRANCISCO — California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

The ruling was unanimous and a succinct 18 pages, a contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

The law was originally designed to prevent hotels, restaurants and other public services from refusing to serve patrons because of their race. The Legislature has since expanded it to cover characteristics such as age and sexual orientation.

"It was an awful thing to go through," Benitez said. "It was very painful — the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family."

Benitez has given birth to three children through artificial insemination — Gabriel, 6, and twin daughters, Sophia and Shane, who turn 3 this weekend. She is raising them in Oceanside with her longtime partner, Joanne Clark.

Jennifer Pizer, Benitez's attorney, said the ruling was "a victory for public health" and that she expected it to have nationwide influence.

"It was clear and emphatic that discrimination has no place in doctors' offices," Pizer said.

Robert Tyler, one of the lawyers representing the clinic, said the ruling advanced the Supreme Court's "radical agenda" and would help the campaign supporting November's Proposition 8, which seeks to once again ban gay marriage in California.

"The Supreme Court's desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about," said Tyler, who leads the nonprofit Advocates for Faith and Freedom in Murrieta, Calif. "This case will have a direct impact and cause people and look very favorably at Proposition 8."

The Supreme Court did order a trial court to consider whether the Christian doctors were allowed to refuse inseminating Benitez because she was unmarried. The Legislature in 2006 amended the law to bar discrimination based on marital status, but it's unclear whether the doctors could legally withhold treatment in 2000.

The case drew numerous friends of the court briefs from a wide variety of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay rights community, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.

The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.

"It was an awful thing to go through," Benitez said. "It was very painful — the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family."

yeah thats it and even better thats all you could muster up. I wasn't bashing anyone, just thought it was stupid that Dr.s are now being forced to do things that are not life saving proceedures.

They're being forced not to discriminate, Einstein.

...the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

I could see withholding actual health care as discriminating, but I'm not sure I buy artificial insemination as "health care". Its a touchy subject and I can see arguments from both sides as having valid points.

Even if it's not "health care" they're still running a business and therefore couldn't discriminate.

The only way they could discriminate legally is if they were doing it for free, which we know wasn't happening.

That's certainly true. Which also shows businesses apparently do not have the legal means to "reserve the right to refuse service" as they so often claim on signs.

That's certainly true. Which also shows businesses apparently do not have the legal means to "reserve the right to refuse service" as they so often claim on signs.

Doesn't sound like discrimation to me.

You know, I understand that we're never going to make any headway with you, and that's fine. But you just let me know the next time your doctor tells you how to give yourself a shot because their "beliefs" prevent them from touching your dirty skin.

The irony is, of course, that odds are anyone who's homophobic is also anti-abortion. So, because their magic sky daddy tells them it's right, they wish to deny children to parents who desperately want them while forcing children into homes that don't want them.

I'm just gonna say it: People who hold these bass-ackwards believes because of their imaginary friend are really effed up.

So I'm effed up

Seriously, if these people wanted kids they'd do it the way their bodies intended it to be done. This... it's like making your pie and eating it too. If women were meant to impregnate women, nature would have given natural means. I refuse to acknowledge homosexual couples. It's not from a religious standpoint, it's just not natural. You don't see other animals go lesbian that I know of, after all

So I'm effed up

Seriously, if these people wanted kids they'd do it the way their bodies intended it to be done. This... it's like making your pie and eating it too. If women were meant to impregnate women, nature would have given natural means. I refuse to acknowledge homosexual couples. It's not from a religious standpoint, it's just not natural. You don't see other animals go lesbian that I know of, after all

The irony is, of course, that odds are anyone who's homophobic is also anti-abortion. So, because their magic sky daddy tells them it's right, they wish to deny children to parents who desperately want them while forcing children into homes that don't want them.

I don't know why you're throwing the word "homophobic" around. Nobody was talking of denying anyone kids, unless you live in China.

The jumping to conclusions is an entertaining one I'll admit.

I think the argument from nature will lead you to some dangerous places...

*rapes any woman he likes*

The irony is, of course, that odds are anyone who's homophobic is also anti-abortion. So, because their magic sky daddy tells them it's right, they wish to deny children to parents who desperately want them while forcing children into homes that don't want them.

I'm just gonna say it: People who hold these bass-ackwards believes because of their imaginary friend are really effed up.

Then let's dive into these "beliefs" the doctors are talking about. What exactly might they be?

To paraphrase Chuck Klosterman in very vague terms, its like the death penalty and abortion. Odds are, if you are pro-death penalty, you are anti-abortion, and vice-versa. In broad strokes, the result is the same, and positive arguments could be made for both sides, but damned if you are gonna convince either side to see the other's point of view. Beliefs are beliefs. But whatever.

And that's not really ironic. Irony would be if Joe the Infant Serial Killer was anti-abortion.

(Sorry for that...its just that the news department at work over-uses the word "ironic" incorrectly and it drives me bananas. Its not ironic if a fire station catches on fire...its ironic if a fireman sets a fire, blah blah blah. Forgive me.)

*in before Alanis Morrissette reference*

FYI it is kind of strange to me that there isn't a consistent life ethic in the US.

Indeed. I think Rosedogg doth protest too much. I was talking about the doctors, not him.

But, as always, if the shoe fits.

Crap, and I was about to post: "What about rain on your wedding day?"



I believe the Cathoic Church's position is consistent.




Altar boys on their knees.

Yeah sorry, I meant "a consistent life ethic from an organization with any ethical credibility"

The fine print on the reservation of rights to refuse service is that it can't be based on Race, Creed, Color, Religious Belief, Sexual Orientation, Politcal Platform, ect.

you can refuse if someone is legitimately being an asshat though.

Oh, nothing's consistent.

The party that's supposed to be for smaller government wants to regulate sex and spy on Americans. The party that's supposed to be all about governmental control and regulation wants to make sure everyone's got their rights protected from governmental interference. The whole damn system is screwed up and I have to align myself with the hippies because the guys who are supposed to be on my side have gone batshit insane.

And - shock of shocks - I mostly blame the bible, which every person with any shot at all of holding elected office - even the hippies candidates - holds to be a sacred and valuable document and claims belief in the mystical man it speaks of.

*cries*

A book is just a book. There are fanboys in religion too...

Yeah, I edited the post to not spin the thread wildly out of control...and also because it's not accurate to how I really feel. I was just looking to vent over not having a candidate who shares (or at least is willing to admit to sharing) my religious beliefs.

Let's stick to politics and complain about how most conservatives aren't.

Unfortunately, "compassion" doesn't end up meaning actually being compassionate towards people, unless telling them what they can and can't do is compassionate.

Unfortunately, "compassion" doesn't end up meaning actually being compassionate towards people, unless telling them what they can and can't do is compassionate.

I'm sitting this one out

Indeed. The Right complains Obama might raise taxes to pay for Healthcare for people who can't afford it. That's downright un-American. Everyone knows the government should only spend money borrowed from China on war for oil, not money taken from its citizens to heal other citizens.

Now, I'd personally rather the government didn't spend money on either - but given a choice between the two, what kind of headspace do you have to be in to not opt for "healthcare"?

oops that's more thread derailment, isn't it

Your homophobia got old a while ago, FYI.

They're being forced not to discriminate, Einstein.

Even if it's not "health care" they're still running a business and therefore couldn't discriminate.

The only way they could discriminate legally is if they were doing it for free, which we know wasn't happening.

So...there needed to be a law for this? Really?

I just think that the money spent on these things should be spent conservatively, i.e. as little money possible spent as efficiently as possible (I understand you often get what you pay for, so sometimes the more expensive option is the best, but I think you see what I'm getting at).

Why are energy-efficient light bulbs bad?

Any health care system, no matter how efficient, that does not fully provide the care needed to the population (assuming that it is physically possible) and only provides to a portion, no matter how great and no matter how well, is a failure.

I'm not saying that some nifty compromise or clever system can't be devised that is part socialized medicine and part market driven, but I think the failure of the free market as a health care funding solution has become manifest to the point of malevolent imbalanced greed.

The free market is all well and good in matters of simple supply and demand, but fails the tests of human reality in matters of supply and necessity.

I would argue that a true free market is not a health care funding option in our country, as the system stands now, so that isn't a point that can be made.

For one thing, that still jumps strait over the primary issue that if a system cannot provide for all, but could it is inadequate and IMO immoral.

Which isn't to say the government doesn't need to be involved, but I think that's a second step to fixing what's wrong with our system, not a first.

Why are energy-efficient light bulbs bad?

I don't understand how any system, the purpose of which is to promote health and alleviate suffering, is supposed to benefit under the principal that profit is derived from denial of health care and allowance of suffering.

It can't.

But free market competition would change what actions result in a profit. You're judging the system as it works now, not how it could work if you, as a consumer, had options and insurance companies had to fight each other for your business.