Posted on 04/26/2006 6:12:17 AM PDT by NYer
A woman whose doctors refused her infertility treatment because she is a lesbian has sued before California's Supreme Court, her attorney said.
"Our client's doctors' behavior goes against established medical ethics and violates California civil rights law," said Lambda Legal attorney Jennifer Pizer in a statement announcing the suit was filed on Monday.
"The doctors claim a right not to comply with California's civil rights law because they are fundamentalist Christians and they object to treating a lesbian patient the same way they treat other patients," the group said in a statement.
An appeals court overturned a trial court decision that Guadalupe Benitez was denied infertility treatment in violation of California law.
"Doctors are supposed to treat their patients, not make religious judgments about them," Benitez said in a statement.
"I trusted my doctors and then they humiliated my family and me by refusing to perform the insemination procedure after they'd been treating me and promising it to me for nearly a year," she said.
More on the "infertile homosexual" story...
Actually, the woman was told up front that the doctor would not perform the procedure on her. She continued to seek treatment there, but ultimately went to another doctor outside her insurance network for the treatment. Here is another older source that has a little bit more information on the story: Court favors doctors in lesbian's suit
No, she said that Catholics consider this to be an artificial means of creating life and thus a devout Catholic doctor would refuse to perform this procedure based on his/her religious beliefs. That is not at all the same as condemning anyone who has used the procedure for conceiving their children. Do you comprehend the difference?
hmmm, I wonder what the chances are that she specifically went to Catholics so that she can sue them when they say no.
What's next suing a Catholic or even a Protestant doc for not murdering your unborn child?
It just so happens that I'm running a 'Two For The Price Of One' special the hole month of May!
It's an elective procedure. I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Here's one back at you: Do you think that a doctor should be required to perform abortions, including partial birth?
So, is a lesbian doctor within her rights to deny a straight couple the same procedure simply because she doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice?
I try to avoid getting too invested in other people's private behavior. That's not to say I don't have some very strong opinions about many things. What someone does in their bedroom is of very little interest to me. I'd just like to see it taken out of the public domain where we are constantly confronted with it. Thanks for your response. :)
Here's the essence of this lawsuit: "Your morals conflict with my deviant desires. I demand that you put your morals aside and affirm my deviant lifestyle. If you don't, we'll force you to comply."
That statement is a lie. They told her up front that they would not perform an artificial insemination for her.
I owe that one to my father, may he rest in piece. Always good for such a colorful observation.
Lol ... you're absolutely right.
Then I too favor the doctor. She was told up front, continued the treatment knowing she would not get what she wanted. The lesbian is in the wrong and it would now seem she may have tried to set up the doctor.
I still, however, have a problem with the statement that all Catholics are opposed to creating life artificially, yet this doctor is performing procedures, regardless of sexuality, that are contrary to his beliefs.
I know a few Catholics who, by that definition, have unsanctioned children.
Of course they are, since the object of medicine is to restore the proper operation of the body. The body of a non-pregnant lesbian is operating properly.
Other than that, the article's fine...
LOL! You're destroying my faith in newspapers!
Not necessarily. She might have lied her head off from the beginning about what she wanted and the way she wanted it.
Actually, she must have lied. I know several people who have been treated for infertility, and their spouses were deeply involved in the entire process. Since she was not trying to conceive a child sexually with a man, I don't see how she could deflected the necessary questions about the prospective father's health WITHOUT lying. I don't even know how she could know for a fact that she was infertile.
And by the way, there are a lot of things that can be done to increase fertility that do not involve artificial insemination or fetal reduction, so a Catholic doctor could legitimately participate in those whithout being accused of "not practicing what he preaches".
Or maybe he's NOT a good Catholic, but still feels like he has to draw the line somewhere. That's fine with me too. Just because someone has fallen into one or more evils himself doesn't mean he has to participate in even more.
Wow. Good question, seriously. To be fair I'd have to say 'yes'.
Of course not. They aren't required to now and never have been.
Oho, and it was a female doctor, too! Funny how I've read about this case several times and never learned THAT fact until today.
Journalists wouldn't stoop so low as to hide the sex of the doctor, just to leave the impression that it was some reactionary unenlightened MAN who was oppressing this poor lesbian, would they?
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.