I give it 6 months -- tops.
Remember "The Edge with Paula Zahn" on FOX News circa 2000 ("The Edge" aired at Greta's current time slot)?
Posted on 08/03/2005 3:36:00 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
A California lesbian who sued her doctors for discrimination after they refused to artificially inseminate her is now fighting both them and the state's largest medical association over whether doctors should have the right to refuse treatment on religious grounds.
The California Medical Association has taken the position that, in addition to being able to choose which procedures they perform, doctors should in some situations be able to choose whom they treat.
A trial court judge ruled in 2003 that the doctors attending to Guadalupe Benitez of Oceanside could claim a religious exemption from performing the procedure on her and that decision is now on appeal before a San Diego appellate court.
A group of gay and minority rights organizations say in a court filing that siding with the 30,000-member medical association would pave the way for widespread discrimination under the guise of religion.
"If the position that's being promoted by the California Medical Association and the physicians in the case carries the day, then we've blown a hole in civil rights protections in the state of California," said Joel Ginsberg, executive director of the San Francisco-based Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, one of the 16 groups that filed a brief in Benitez's case.
Ginsberg offered the hypothetical examples of an Orthodox Jewish restaurant owner who refuses to allow men and women to sit together or a Muslim shop owner barring women who do not wear head coverings.
The medical association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in May, softened its stance when its leaders learned last week that a doctor in the case had said under oath that she would not inseminate "a gay couple," said Peter Warren, the association spokesman.
"We're re-examining (our brief) based on additional facts that came to light," Warren said. "The important thing is for us to make the right decision here and determine whether to be involved in the case."
The association's executive committee will discuss the issue at a meeting Monday in Sacramento, he said.
But Jennifer Pizer, the lawyer for Benitez, said, "Whatever the motive was, whether marital status or sexual orientation, it's an issue of whether religion gives people a free pass to ignore laws that apply to everybody else. Any type of discrimination that today is illegal, it would be open season on any of those because religious freedom deems it not discrimination anymore."
Benitez said her doctor told her and her partner of 11 years during their first visit to the clinic in 1999 that she would not perform a certain type of artificial insemination on Benitez because Benitez is gay.
Benitez said she was speechless at first but the doctor then told her that another physician at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group - the only fertility clinic covered by Benitez's health plan - would perform the insemination when the time came.
"After she said that, I said, 'OK, we're OK. I respect your decision, as long as you're saying another physician will help me.' But obviously that wasn't the case," Benitez said.
Benitez's doctor treated her extensively, but when it came time to inseminate her with a syringe inserted into her uterus, all of the doctors at the clinic refused.
Whether they did that on the grounds of her sexual orientation or marital status is important because the Unruh Act, which protects the civil rights of Californians in business and commercial settings, protects people from discrimination based on sexual orientation but not marital status.
The California Medical Association has argued that the doctor had the right to refuse Benitez treatment because of a religious conviction against unwed parents.
Once the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego rules whether the doctor can make that argument the case will return to Superior Court for trial.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com.)
- - - - - - - - - -
Our next SITUATION, from Southern California, pits a doctor against her lesbian patient. That‘s after the doctor refused to artificial inseminate the woman, claiming a religious exemption from performing a procedure. Now a gay group is suing the doctor and the state‘s largest medical association for discrimination.
Now, I see why they‘re mad. But the bottom line here is, you can‘t compel a physician perform a procedure he or she is opposed to morally. I just don‘t see how you can do that. I just don‘t see how the government can say, you may be opposed to this, but we‘re going to force you to do it. There‘s nothing liberal about that. That‘s authoritarian.
CROSBY: Give me a break. What‘s appalling in this case, I‘m truly middle of the road. But I think it is shocking, he basically said in depositions later—he goes back to the fact she wasn‘t married—that was the real reason. But then he said the lesbian issue.
Give me a break. He‘s a doctor. If this is what he‘s supposed to do and what the state is saying he should do—
MADDOW: And if were a tonsillectomy and this doctor said I‘m not going to perform a tonsillectomy on this woman because she‘s a lesbian. Is that ok?
CARLSON: I would say the doctor has a right—isn‘t the Left always saying it‘s up to the doctor and the conscious and the conscious of the patient. It ought to be up to the conscious of the dr. It‘s a sole practioner that could make the decisions.
MADDOW: What if a person is bleeding on a hospital bed? He going to say I‘m not going to operate because she‘s a lesbian?
CARLSON: You don‘t draw the line. If this doctor is not an employee of the government, you can‘t tell him which job he has to perform and which job he can‘t?
CROSBY: But this was through her health care process. She was part of this healthcare system.
CARLSON: Well, first of all, she got the procedure done somewhere else, which is not even germane to the principle of it.
(CROSS TALK)
MADDOW: The standard historically is that a physician can decide not to do a particular kind of procedure because he or she doesn‘t want to.
CARLSON: That‘s right.
MADDOW: You can‘t decide which patient you‘re going to do it on or not. That‘s discrimination. It‘s the same reason I can‘t walk into a restaurant—
(CROSS TALK)
MADDOW: If I walk into a restaurant and a person who owns the restaurant says I‘m not going to serve you a meal because you, Rachel, are gay. That person can‘t do that, because that‘s discrimination. That‘s why we have the—
CROSBY: Maybe they don‘t like blondes. Give me a break.
CARLSON: In the end you can‘t force someone to do something he‘s morally opposed to if he doesn‘t work for the government.
CROSBY: Then you know what then, don‘t be a doctor. Also if you are going to be a doctor, have a big sign out saying I‘ll only take patients who do X. Make it clear.
CARLSON: Make it clear, but it sounds like this physician, who is a woman, did make it clear. She‘s still being sued by a group that wants to force her, ram it down her throat. They cannot call themselves liberal. There is nothing liberal about that. Liberalism is allowing people to do what they think is right.
(CROSS TALK)
MADDOW: Could a restaurant owner say I will not serve gay people?
CARLSON: It‘s prohibited by law. I believe that private organizations ought to be able to make their own decisions, however repugnant they are. However much I disagree with them you can‘t force people to do things.
(CROSS TALK)
CROSBY: But this was part of her healthcare plan.
MADDOW: Are you OK with the segregated lunch counter?
CARLSON: I‘m totally, totally, morally opposed to it!
MADDOW: OK, but you defend the right to do it.
CARLSON: I‘m not defending the rights in this case. You‘re not going to suck me into that.
(CROSS TALK)
MADDOW: But what about—
CARLSON: Hold on. Let me you asked me a question. Slow t down.
MADDOW: OK, let me clarify when you are done.
CARLSON: Let me answer. I won‘t be pulled into a false analogy to the civil rights movement, where I sound like Bull Connor (ph). I‘m stipulating that ahead of time.
Let me just say, again, a doctor should never be compelled to perform a procedure he or she finds morally repugnant. Even if we disagree; even if I disagree, you disagree, you disagree, it‘s a private doctor. You can‘t force him to do something against his conscience.
MADDOW: Tucker, if that doctor performs inseminations.
CARLSON: Right.
MADDOW: And that doctor will perform an insemination on a straight person but not a gay person, is that ok?
CARLSON: If that doctor says, as this doctor did, it is against my religion to do this—and by the way, I don‘t want to inseminate a single parent, then I say you can‘t force him. I can say it‘s outrageous. I can say it is wrong, maybe I will say it‘s wrong, but you can‘t make him.
(CROSS TALK)
CROSBY: I say he gets out of the business. I say he‘s in the wrong profession.
MADDOW: The doctor said in a sworn deposition, I won‘t do this because the patient is gay. Marital status is a complete red herring and so therefore—
CARLSON: Hold on, we don‘t know it‘s a red herring.
MADDOW: The doctor admitted in a sworn deposition, I did not perform this procedure because the patient is gay.
(CROSS TALK)
CARLSON: Well, let me just say, for the record, the California Medical Association is taking the position, this is not a crackpot group of religious extremists, it‘s the California Medical Association, which has fought for gay rights in medicine, is saying the doctor didn‘t want to do it because she didn‘t want to inseminate a single mother. That‘s their position.
CROSBY: They‘re saying it‘s OK. I also take issue with them.
MADDOW: You can‘t get out of saying you are right or wrong by saying somebody else says it too.
CARLSON: I think we‘re making progress, but my position remains unchanged. You can‘t force people to act against their own conscious.
MADDOW: You‘re wrong.
I really enjoyed your comment and that is something not discussed. They are no longer journalists they are trying to look like they would come over to play a game of cards and while there chit chat about the current news of the day.
The transcript in it's whole can be found here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8787555/.
It all started with the pharmacists. Once they knew they could get rid of those who won't dispense due to religious grounds the door opened to go after the doctors.
Yes, it is Tucker from Crossfire. Hey I am channel surfing in the summer time.
I can tell Cosby's voice and decided to see what MSNBC was doing with her once I heard her thoughts on the doctor, that she was middle of the road kind of person, I shot an email to FOX saying thank you for showing her the door, not offering her a contract, because she felt she deserved more than FOX was paying her.
Now then, her new show is up against FOX and unless you are Joe or most shows fail on MSNBC, I predict her's will not last the year.
That's a little different- an employer should be free to fire a pharmacist who has religious objections to filling certain prescriptions. However, if the employer is okay with letting their employee opt out of filling scrips for birth control, doing abortions or artificially inseminatin lesbians, that should also be his right.
So am I, the article is about a doctor refusing to inseminate a lesbian and Cosby seems to think the doctor should leave her practice, she does not deserve to practice medicine.
Furthermore, if I were a female, I would not want a reluctant person poking around in this intimate space.
Five will get you ten that one of these liberal females turns around and accuses the poor doctor of rape with an object after forcing him to do the deed.
I was thinking the same thing. If the state can force this then they could force doctors to perform abortion, euthanasia etc.
I thought involuntary servitude was outlawed.
Except for the special case of the Emergency Room (where a pre-condition for working there is that the doc must provide life-saving treatment for whoever walks in), I agree with you. A doc should be allowed to accept, or not accept, whoever he wants, for whatever reason seems important to him.
I would go further, and say I disagree with the "civil rights" laws that demand a business owner not refuse business to people he's rather not serve. If somebody only wants to seat or employ left-handed Lithuanians, that's his business (literally)
I agree. Unless it's a matter of life and death, a doctor should be able to refuse any treatment he doesn't want to perform, and refer the patient to another practice (or invite them to get out the phone book and find one themselves.)
I give it 6 months -- tops.
Remember "The Edge with Paula Zahn" on FOX News circa 2000 ("The Edge" aired at Greta's current time slot)?
Well, I agree. But a lot of pharmacies are owned by the pharmacists and some of the issues were to force them to fill prescriptions. My come back was to have your prescriptions filled somewhere else. Then they got into the "what if it is the only one in 100 miles" discussion.
I'm glad she is gone....now her true liberal loon leanings can come out...she no longer has to hide that she's a bleeding heart liberal...
Exactly!
And the larger question is: while denying anyone access to public facilities based on race (defined by genetics) is unconstitutional, where in that grand document does the right to artificial insemination by a private physician exist, be the recipient gay, straight, or otherwise?
And furthermore, some doctors may adhere to Christian principles that some behaviors are based upon the concept of sin. If we are going to say that gays (defined by behavior) are entitled to artificial insemination, then what other behaviors are we going to ignore and require the procedure to be performed? And doesn't the right of "free exercise" of the doctor's religion, specifically spelled out in the constitution, trump a right to be inseminated, which is a non-existent "right" apparently cut out of whole cloth?
First of all, this is not a tonsillectomy or a lunch being served. The former is just the removal a scrap of diseased tissue and the latter is a reference to the civil rights controversy---about serving people who can't change their skin color, as opposed to lesbians who have free will in regard to their behavior.
However, if the doctor is taking part in a health care racket---er, plan---and he has agreed to take patients according to certain rules, in order (I would think) to obtain certain benefits or advantages in his medical practice, then I'd say he is obliged to stew in the juices he chose for himself---or get out of the Faustian contract.
"A California lesbian who sued her doctors for discrimination after they refused to artificially inseminate her is now fighting both them and the state's largest medical association over whether doctors should have the right to refuse treatment on religious grounds."
Since when has ones sexual orientation qualify for religious discrimination?
Spit the nuts out Rita. We can't understand you.
I agree. Mental illnesses are protected under the ADA. That's what she should be suing under.
Typical leftist tactic, change the parameters of the argument because you're wrong. Maddow would defend lesbianism even if said lesbian had inflamed tonsils. Too funny. Cosby is right. Homosexuals use their "lifestyle" (and I deliberately use that in quotes) as an excuse at every turn.
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.