Skip to comments.California Supreme Court Rules Doctors Must Provide Treatment against Their Religious Beliefs
Posted on 08/19/2008 4:01:59 PM PDT by wagglebee
SAN FRANCISCO, August 19, 2008 (LifeSIteNews.com) - A lesbian woman in California has won a law suit in which she claims doctors at a fertility clinic discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation.
In a 7-0 decision yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that religious beliefs do not excuse doctors from the state's anti-discrimination law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."
"The 1st Amendment's right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the . . . antidiscrimination requirements, even if compliance poses an incidental conflict with the defendants' religious beliefs," wrote Justice Joyce L. Kennard in the 18-page decision.
Dr. Douglas Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody of the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in San Diego County, the defendants in the case, said they had declined for religious reasons to artificially inseminate an unmarried woman and argued that the US 1st Amendment, which guarantees rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, protected them from being compelled to perform a medical procedure which conflicted with their moral beliefs.
Dr. Brody, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the clinic, said she would not perform an intrauterine insemination on Guadalupe, a lesbian who lives with her partner and wanted to become pregnant with donated sperm, stating she would not perform the procedure on any unmarried woman, regardless of sexual orientation.
Benítez sought the treatment in 1999 after two years of trying to conceive using an at-home insemination kit; she had been diagnosed with an ovarian syndrome that would require her to get the help of fertility specialists to get pregnant.
When Dr. Brody refused to do the insemination Benítez sued her and the clinic, which resulted in a 2004 court ruling in favour of Benitez. An Appeals Court overturned that decision one year later, finding that the previous ruling had denied the doctors' religious rights. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision, however, voided the Appeals Court ruling.
"This isn't just a win for me personally and for other lesbian women," said Benitez about the Supreme Court ruling. "Anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people."
According to an L. A. Times report, Kenneth R. Pedroza, who represented the doctors, said the ruling would probably cause many physicians to refuse to perform inseminations at all. Pedroza said Dr. Brody did not violate the law because it did not bar discrimination on the basis of marital status when Benitez sought insemination in 1999. The state law has since been amended.
A press release from the Capitol Resource Institute, a California family policy advocacy group, said, "The California Supreme Court's decision proves that these activist judges are willing to deny our First Amendment religious freedom in order to create rights for homosexuals." (http://www.capitolresource.org/)
The Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the doctors, concurred: "Today, California's highest court unanimously ruled that the state's civil rights laws offer virtually no exceptions for people of faith. Unless the ruling is eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court . . . its implications appear to be far-reaching. For instance, the ruling probably means that, regardless of their beliefs, everyone in the state's wedding industry must service gay weddings, California family law attorneys must handle gay adoptions and same-sex divorces, and so on."
PJI President Brad Dacus said, "This case starkly demonstrates the take-no-prisoners approach of the gay rights movement. They will not stop until they have silenced or bankrupted every voice of conscience who disagrees with them." (http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cf...)
And they are destroying society in the process.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Move out of CA....ASAP....
Every doctor should move out of California.
Wait til we hear from the Muslim medical groups,
a pandora’s box this is.
California will probably find that it’s ok for muslims to refuse treatment of infidels.
So, an intoxicated driver is brought into the ER and a muslim Dr. in on duty, what happens then?
Some one choking on BBq?
So much for:
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Association
The real problem here is that the lesbian has all the rights. But the child she wants to have has none.
“an incidental conflict with the defendants’ religious beliefs”
I guess in TODAY's Amerika, the Courts are not mentioned in the Establishment Clause, so they're making their OWN rules....
A doctor exercising his religious principles is banned from doing so by this ruling, but it's not un-Constitutional to do so?
Hope this goes to the USSC and gets over-turned, although the Liberals on the Court will vote for upholding the rights of sex deviates, as usual.....
See me. Hear me. Love me. Give me.Me. Me ME! ME!
What a sad life.
So now all doctors are going to be required to perform abortions, even if it’s against their religion?
Take it to SCOTUS.
While blatantly UN Constitutional, what would one expect from the CaliMexiHomoia?
If I was a Doctor there I would just leave and go to somewhere decent to live and work.
"Anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people."
Note the wanton use of the the word "target." Excuse me, who was the plaintiff? This is liberalspeak 101 - as though there were doctors traveling around, looking for fat, ugly lesbians who wanted AI children, and then doing nothing, nada, not a thing.
People had better get ready: When individuals team with government to destroy civilization, the vacuum created by the subtraction of the responsible, individual will is always filled with more government strangulation and ipso facto, less freedom. This is slavery of the human spirit, and an affront to what Westerners used to cherish.
Ya I thought it was an awkward word choice to say she was a target, and anyone could be the next target.
She voluntarily went to them for a voluntary medical procedure. She wasn’t denied life saving treatements or emergency care.
So now, lesbians have a constitutional right to sperm. Who knew. How special.
Ha. More doctors agree with the dykes than don't. Of course, that didn't stop the dykes from pushing the agenda with the ones who did.
And the moving vans begin to rumble.
The ones who disagree with this statement are the same ones who think the War on Terror isn't a religious conflict.
This is absurd. The California Supreme Court is just a bunch of politically correct busybodies. All that the whiny patients had to do was go to another fertility clinic. This isn’t about civil rights, it’s about using the power of the state to run their businesses. I suppose we should be thankful they didn’t rule on what a person is or isn’t allowed to think.
I know that's a radical statement in the hallowed halls of Californias Supreme Court but there you have it.
This is wrong.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
What if a Muslim doctor threw a blind patient out of his office because the patient had a seeing eye dog
They will under Obamacare - and we will have to pay for it.
What's next is the rights of evangelical pastors or Roman Catholic priests to deny marring them. I'm sure that one's in the works.
Here in California, the nuts have fully taken over.
I'm taking my motorcycle to Corral Canyon this weekend and ride off this filth.
My Chairman! I propose an amendment.
There's a distinct difference between emergency medical care and elective procedures. It makes sense to require on-duty doctors to perform emergency treatment, even if they don't like the patients or their lifestyles.
In emergencies, the patient doesn't usually get to choose which doctor to see, and the doctor doesn't have the luxury to refer the patient elsewhere.
This case (involving artificial insemination) was purely elective, with the patient free to choose a different doctor.
This reminds me of the cases where some pharmacists refused to dispense the so-called morning-after pill due to religious objections. I thought they didn't have to dispense the drug, since the patients could go to other pharmacies. The pharmacies, however, could probably fire the pharmacists if they wanted to.
Last week judges ruled in favor of UC rejecting the classes of a Christian schools because the classes did not meet their standard. ( Of course the standard of how well this kids have done historically is not considered). With this ruling will the government now control content of private schooling by controlling who gets the government credit (mark of the beast) or not?
The following is from Revelations 13: 16-17
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Once again the tyrants passing as judges get away with destroying the rights of the many to support the endeavors of the mentally deranged. How do we get rid of these sticking excuses for the deliverers of “justice.”
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.