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 predict her show will last a month and a half based on two factors: 1. MSNBC can't program their station worth a damn, and 2. She'll be up against the O'Reilly Factor re-run at 11pm ET. I start channel surfing when FOX News starts breaking news and tells me what I already know.
Generally it's because of non-compliance issues, but I've seen it for other reasons too.
If a Muslim restaurant owner refused to seat women not wearing the hijab, the government of California would bow down and worship him. If an Orthodox Jew refused to seat women and men together, there would be a class action lawsuit and they'd drive him right out of business.
And I quote Ayn Rand in asking "Do you want to be lying on a table at the mercy of a man holding a knife, when you have compelled him against his will to operate on you?"
Frankly, my dear, I decline.
YOU SAY "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)"
[HEAVY SARCASM ALERT]
OOH you evil evil person. That would require freedom of choice. That would mean that [GASP] government was not allowed to control private businesses. You heretic...What are you anti-government or something? Don't you know that Government just wants to help us.
[END SARCASM]
I have been saying that for 35 years. If a business pays its taxes and has no reliance on public funds, how can a government tell it who it can or cannot serve.
Freedom should mean just that, FREEDOM
Agreed. The physician in question, because of religious conviction, can choose not to perform a procedure. An interesting case to be sure.
The worst are shows like Reliable Sources where the topic is themselves, and they pretend to be sophisticated and to ask penetrating questions about the media. Retch.
You know, it just occurred to me after reading the beginnings of this post - Rita Cosby is missing!! OMG!! /sarcasm
I agree, unless a life-saving procedure is in question.
There is no life threatening situation. There is no obligation to treat.
Physician's turn away patients all the time.
First, do no harm.
Hey, your comment gives me an idea - Rita should "leave the profession."
Any slight belief in less government and personal responsibility.
Or, to put it this way, whatever Carlson thinks it is. My point is that he is such a poor debater that he harms whatever cause he is trying to help.
Saw "Crosby" and wasn't sure it was Rita Cosby (no r in her name). I won't miss her on Fox at all. In fact, I never cared for her.
sometimes... but i found him quite impressive during the Terry Schiavo tragedy... he held his position strongly against those who thought it was the right thing to let her die (or kill her, in my/his opinion)...
He should have asked. . .Should a doctor have to form an ABORTION if he or she is against it?
Then wow...is there an open business opportunity.
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.