Court weighs if doctors can not treat lesbian

[Ichingcarpenter]

Less than two weeks after legalizing same-sex marriages in California, the state Supreme Court had some tough questions Wednesday for a lawyer defending doctors who refused on religious grounds to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian.

The case of Guadalupe Benitez presents the justices with issues of civil rights and discrimination from a different perspective than the one they addressed May 15, when they overturned the state's opposite-sex-only marriage law.

Benitez sued North Coast Women's Care, a fertility clinic in Vista (San Diego County), and two of its doctors who refused in 2000 to provide intrauterine insemination. She said Christine Brody, her treating physician, and Douglas Fenton, the clinic's medical director, told her their Christian beliefs prohibited them from furnishing the infertility treatment for a lesbian couple.

Benitez's lawyers said the doctors gave the same explanation in sworn declarations but asserted in later depositions that they would refuse the treatment to any unmarried couple. The distinction is potentially important if the case goes to trial because, at the time, California courts had ruled that state law barred businesses from denying service to gays and lesbians but had not yet decided whether the law also prohibited discrimination based on marital status.
>>>>snip

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/29/BAJO10UV9H.DTL

[KamaAina]

1. It's the best there is, that Catch-22.

"We're not discriminating against her because she's a lesbian. Oh, my goodness, no. That would be illegal. We're discriminating against here because she's unmarried!"

Never mind that she can't get married (to her partner), until June 17th, at any rate. :eyes:

edit: sure she could get married now -- to a guy, like they used to do in the '50s.

[xchrom]

2. so then after the 17th -- they would do the job?

i mean - not that they should wait -- but the temptation is there.

other than that this pisses me to no end.

[FreeState]

3. Except for CA does not allow you to discriminate based on marital status :)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/press/20071015AD27PR01.htm

"The Unruh Civil Rights Act entitles all persons within the jurisdiction of this state to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments, regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation."

[KamaAina]

4. That apparently wasn't settled law at the time

From the original article:

The distinction is potentially important if the case goes to trial because, at the time, California courts had ruled that state law barred businesses from denying service to gays and lesbians but had not yet decided whether the law also prohibited discrimination based on marital status.

So, "We promise we won't do it again. Honest." (cut to shot of fingers crossed behind back)

[FreeState]

6. Intresting - none the less I think any judge would see the intent of the law

was to protect GLBT folks from this kind of discrimination - at least I hope they would anyway.

CA has a screwed up court system as it is - LOL - the one gay person on the Supreme Court here ruled against gay marriage - go figure...

[HockeyMom]

5. Yes, my aunt did just that in the 50s

Married a man just to have a child. They were divorced 6 months after my cousin was born. She then moved in with her SO from before the marriage and raised her son together.

Actually, Barry had a very nice life with his two Moms. Better than I did with my father and mother, but I won't get into that.

It's the love and homelife that counts in bringing up a child, not the gender of their parents.

[HawkerHurricane]

7. Simple solution...

if your job requires you to do something that your religion forbids, you really have no choice but to QUIT and GET A DIFFERENT JOB.

(or you could change your religion. But I understand that's harder.)

No, really. I mean, if your religion forbids you from taking a human life, maybe you shouldn't work as an executioner.
If your religion forbids you from handling dead bodies, perhaps you shouldn't be a coroner.
If your faith says you aren't allowed to work on Sundays, maybe you should look into something other than the NFL.

[Edweird]

8. She should go to a different doctor. Really. Why would you want someone that has an issue

with who you are to perform that kind procedure? You don't want my money? Screw you guys, I'm goin' someplace else.

[Dogtown]

10. Undoubtable she will

but she will wait until she's finished litigation apparently, placing her own needs and desires behind seeking justice.

Admirable woman.

[FreeState]

12. She already found a different doctor and had twins

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5806410.html

"Benitez, a 36-year-old mother of a 6-year-old boy and 2-year-old twin girls, sued Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group under a state law that prohibits for-profit businesses from arbitrarily discriminating against clients based on characteristics such as race, age and sexual orientation."

[Dogtown]

18. Cool!

Thanks, FreeState!

[FreeState]

11. She has an HMO and had no choice unless she paid for is out of pocket - plus they had treated her

She has an HMO and had no choice unless she paid for is out of pocket - plus they had treated her for 11 months already!!!

http://www.gay.com/news/election/article.html?2005/07/27/3

"A broad group of health care and community organizations are banding together to support a California woman who was denied insemination because she is a lesbian.

In the summer of 2000, the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group and Doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton refused to inseminate Guadalupe Benitez.

She had received 11 months of treatment from the San Diego clinic, but at the critical moment when she needed insemination, both Brody and Fenton refused to treat her, citing their personal religious beliefs. The move forced Benitez to go outside of her health plan to receive services."

[LeftyMom]

14. If I'm not mistaken, this was the doctor her HMO sent her to.

If I remember the details properly, she had Kaiser, and this was the only practice in the area they covered.

[RB TexLa]

9. wave enough money at them and they'll do it.

[originalpckelly]

13. I would much rather have this person make the right choice than be forced to do so.

You know, they might actually try repeatedly to change the guys mind. If he refuses, they can always go to a non-bigoted doctor.

Coercion inspires animosity, not understanding.

The guy will do it, but only because he has to, not because his mind was truly changed. I think it's a forgone conclusion he's going to be even more pissed off at gay people now that he's been taken to court. Instead of changing his mind we've made him even angrier.

Not wanting coercion is not equivalent to wanting the status quo, discrimination based upon sexual orientation is wrong on its face, but I would rather solve the problem than make it worse.

[LeftyMom]

15. Are you unfamiliar with the details of the case?

She'd seen this doctor at this practice for months and months. They'd done the prep work (I'm assuming this means hormones to time her cycle appropriately, this is a pretty difficult thing to go through) with no problem and mentioned no objections, but right when the time to do the IUI came, (and keep in mind this is a thing that doesn't work with good timing, so this was a bigger deal than just making an appointment with somebody else) all of the sudden they wouldn't treat her because she's a lesbian, which they apparently knew all along.

And these were the doctors her HMO sent her to, so she couldn't just go to somebody else.

[ConsAreLiars]

16. So they had no problem taking her (insurance) money? But then refused to

provide the full service they were contracted to provide. Oh yes, true fundie me-me-me haters and swindlers.

[LeftyMom]

17. Exactly. nt

[HuffleClaw]

19. those that do this crap need to be prosecuted

under federal civil rights laws.

[Riddler]

20. I bet if he could save a sick child whose parents refused medical attention on religious grounds

he would be doing everything he could to overrule them and save the child. Why should his religious beliefs overshadow those of others when it comes to him performing the job he was trained to do?

[Quantess]

22. But, treating illness is different than helping someone conceive.

Not artificially inseminating someone does not result in health consequences, while not treating a sick child could have terrible health consequences.

I agree that a doctor's religious beliefs should not give him/her the right to deny someone treatment. But your comparison isn't the same.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. As an African-American man, I would never want to be treated by a doctor who

was only treating me because the law said that he had to.