Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CA Supremes to Hear Case of Lesbian Denied Infertility Treatment by Christian Fundamentalist Doctors

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
canis_lupus Donating Member (213 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 10:28 PM
Original message
CA Supremes to Hear Case of Lesbian Denied Infertility Treatment by Christian Fundamentalist Doctors
The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday, May 28, 2008 in the case of an Oceanside lesbian whose doctors at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group denied her fertility treatments based on their religious beliefs.

Lambda Legal represents Guadalupe "Lupita" Benítez. In 1999, her doctor referred her to North Coast for fertility treatments. After eleven months of preparatory treatments, doctors finally admitted they would not inseminate her because she is a lesbian. 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.

In late 2004, Benitez won a legal ruling in the trial court saying that doctors in a for-profit medical group must comply with California’s antidiscrimination laws and treat all patients equally, whatever the doctors’ personal religious beliefs may be; in other words, if they provide a certain type of treatment, they must provide it equally to all patients. The doctors asked the Court of Appeal in San Diego to review that ruling and the court ruled in the doctors’ favor.

Jennifer C. Pizer is the lead attorney on the case for Lambda Legal. She is joined by co-counsel Jon B. Eisenberg, a leading appellate specialist, Robert Welsh, Seph McNamara and Lee Fink of O'Melveny & Myers LLP in Los Angeles, and Albert Gross of Solana Beach, CA. The case is Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group.


http://gaynewsblog.net/2008/05/california-supreme-court-to-hear-case.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Imagine: a Christian Science EMT who insists on prayer rather than medicine
Or a Jehovah's Witness ER doctor who refuses to give blood transfusions "because that is my religion."

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group are about to get their
asses sued off for discrimination. It was not that she was physically unfit to have a pregnancy she wanted, just religious ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Expect to see this more and more.
Michigan Fundy Schiezekopfs are planning runs at the courts with cases that they want to use to establish that practitioners who won't provide a service based on their religious beliefs don't even have to refer a patient to another practitioner.

Their logic: if they refer then they are enabling a procedure that is against their religion.

This just gets dumber and dumber.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. As I said above...
If this is allowed, what is to prevent Christian Science emergency medical technicians from excercising a "right" to use Christian prayer instead of modern medicine when someone's life is on the line? What is to prevent a JW emergency room doctor from excercising a "right" to prohibit patients from receiving blood transfusions on his shift?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I speak from experience!
My 16 year old daughter went "Wild Child" one week before she was set to go live with her mother because our "rules" were intolerable. On the very day she's supposed to get on the plane, she calls me to take her to the hospital, thinks she was assaulted while passed out.

I took her to the ER, and set up her care before I had to run back to the house and finish her plane reservations.

In VERY short order, I get the call that she's ready to go, and I go back to get her with her bags: we are less than 1 hour from takeoff.

On the way to the airport, revelations: Her Fundy Doctor in the ER talked her out of a "rape kit" because anything that happened to her was "...her fault and responsibility..." AND he wouldn't even give her Plan B because it was against his "religion" (he is also a Baptist Preacher of the AA and homophobe variety). He traded her off to another doctor for the script.

Because of this, she's more traumatized from the lecture about her going to hell for "aborting her child," and we are liable for 100% costs (OVER $1000) because it's no longer an emergency.

I call the hospital when I get back, Nursing Supervisors get with me ("...oh yes, that doctor again...") and I get promised a call from him to iron this out. He never calls, and when I finally get him a week later, he plays "he said/she said" with me, confirming that the rape counselor was never called in, but MY parenting skills for leaving her there are extremely questionable.

End result? I don't know if this asshole got reprimanded, but they canceled all costs, including the ER charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-02-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. From my understanding is that they treated the woman
until the last step , and then started fucking with her, after they had milked every cent they could and then started switching Drs on her. perhaps if they had said something at the outset and refused treatment initially, it would be one thing, but This treatment amounted to fraud,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC