The Padre
Posts: 4,558 
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
August 6th, 2007, 03:24 AM
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
When does the freedom to practice religion become discrimination?
The California Supreme Court is being asked to answer that question when it hears a legal dispute between a lesbian mom and two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her for religious reasons.
The first-of-its-kind case is shaping up as one of the most controversial before the court in years. The court has not set a date to hear the case, but more than 40 groups already have filed briefs asking to be heard
The court is being asked to decide how to accommodate a physician's religious views without violating California's anti-discrimination laws.
California is a major testing ground for this issue.
Longstanding dispute
What distinguishes the case of Guadalupe Benitez is that the physicians involved refused to provide a medical procedure to one patient that they readily provide to others, says Jill Morrison, legal counsel to the National Women's Law Center, an advocacy group that works to protect women's rights in the workplace, schools, sports, and health care. "Usually, providers who object to certain services object to them for everyone: 'I won't provide contraception.' In this case, they don't object to the service, just the patient. You can't pick and choose. You can't say, 'I will perform it for white people, but not for black people.' "
Kenneth Pedroza, the doctors' attorney, counters that an "all-or-nothing" rule will drive physicians out of certain specialties.
The dispute arose in 2000 after San Diego-area doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton refused to artificially inseminate Benitez, a lesbian who lives with her partner, Joanne Clark, in Oceanside, north of San Diego.
By that time, Benitez had been a patient at the clinic for 11 months and been taking fertility drugs prescribed by Brody. The clinic was the only facility covered by Benitez' health insurance plan.
"I was very distraught," Benitez says. "I was very confused. I couldn't even bear to think that possibly I was never going to be able to have children."
In 2001, Benitez sued the doctors, claiming that they violated California's anti-discrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians.
Court wrangling over pretrial issues consumed three years. In 2005, an appeals court ruled that the doctors have the right to wage their religious freedom defense at the trial. Benitez appealed that issue, and the state Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the case.
After the Supreme Court rules on that narrow issue, the case will go to trial.
Some facts in the case are still in dispute. The doctors say in court papers that they refused to treat Benitez because she is unmarried, not because she is gay. Benitez, now 35, contends that the physicians originally told her the issue was her sexual orientation, then changed their reason.
Other Californians also say doctors citing an objection to single parenthood have refused them certain treatments.
Cheryl Bray, a real estate broker, says she was humiliated when her doctor refused to perform a routine physical to allow her to complete an adoption of a baby from Mexico. When the doctor discovered she was single, he says he told her his religious beliefs require that children have two parents.
"I'm upper-middle-class mainstream," Bray says. "That's why I was just so shocked."
Bray, 44, eventually found another doctor who performed the exam, and she adopted a baby girl.
In the case before the state court, Pedroza says his clients referred Benitez to another physician who would perform the procedure.
"We want to help the patient find whatever they want," he says. "But at the same time, this is a relationship. Don't force your physician to do something against their sincerely held religious belief."
Groups align on both sides
The interveners include two dozen gay or civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that state anti-discrimination laws prohibit doctors from refusing to serve certain patients.
The doctors have drawn support from 16 conservative law centers or religious organizations, ranging from former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese, who wrote the brief for the American Civil Rights Union, to the Foundation for Free Expression, a California group that calls homosexuality a "sin" in court papers and compares gay activists to "suicide bombers who would destroy themselves while they murder others." That brief drew a rebuke from the two doctors, who say neither supports "the tone of some of the references" or the "offensive language."
Benitez, meanwhile, received treatment at another facility and has given birth to a son, now 5, and twin daughters, now 2.
"People ask me, 'Why are you doing this? You have your kids,' " she says. "I want to make a difference. These doctors are not God. They cannot manipulate who can have children and who cannot."
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
When does the freedom to practice religion become discrimination?
The California Supreme Court is being asked to answer that question when it hears a legal dispute between a lesbian mom and two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her for religious reasons.
The first-of-its-kind case is shaping up as one of the most controversial before the court in years. The court has not set a date to hear the case, but more than 40 groups already have filed briefs asking to be heard
The court is being asked to decide how to accommodate a physician's religious views without violating California's anti-discrimination laws.
California is a major testing ground for this issue.
Longstanding dispute
What distinguishes the case of Guadalupe Benitez is that the physicians involved refused to provide a medical procedure to one patient that they readily provide to others, says Jill Morrison, legal counsel to the National Women's Law Center, an advocacy group that works to protect women's rights in the workplace, schools, sports, and health care. "Usually, providers who object to certain services object to them for everyone: 'I won't provide contraception.' In this case, they don't object to the service, just the patient. You can't pick and choose. You can't say, 'I will perform it for white people, but not for black people.' "
Kenneth Pedroza, the doctors' attorney, counters that an "all-or-nothing" rule will drive physicians out of certain specialties.
The dispute arose in 2000 after San Diego-area doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton refused to artificially inseminate Benitez, a lesbian who lives with her partner, Joanne Clark, in Oceanside, north of San Diego.
By that time, Benitez had been a patient at the clinic for 11 months and been taking fertility drugs prescribed by Brody. The clinic was the only facility covered by Benitez' health insurance plan.
"I was very distraught," Benitez says. "I was very confused. I couldn't even bear to think that possibly I was never going to be able to have children."
In 2001, Benitez sued the doctors, claiming that they violated California's anti-discrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians.
Court wrangling over pretrial issues consumed three years. In 2005, an appeals court ruled that the doctors have the right to wage their religious freedom defense at the trial. Benitez appealed that issue, and the state Supreme Court last year agreed to hear the case.
After the Supreme Court rules on that narrow issue, the case will go to trial.
Some facts in the case are still in dispute. The doctors say in court papers that they refused to treat Benitez because she is unmarried, not because she is gay. Benitez, now 35, contends that the physicians originally told her the issue was her sexual orientation, then changed their reason.
Other Californians also say doctors citing an objection to single parenthood have refused them certain treatments.
Cheryl Bray, a real estate broker, says she was humiliated when her doctor refused to perform a routine physical to allow her to complete an adoption of a baby from Mexico. When the doctor discovered she was single, he says he told her his religious beliefs require that children have two parents.
"I'm upper-middle-class mainstream," Bray says. "That's why I was just so shocked."
Bray, 44, eventually found another doctor who performed the exam, and she adopted a baby girl.
In the case before the state court, Pedroza says his clients referred Benitez to another physician who would perform the procedure.
"We want to help the patient find whatever they want," he says. "But at the same time, this is a relationship. Don't force your physician to do something against their sincerely held religious belief."
Groups align on both sides
The interveners include two dozen gay or civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that state anti-discrimination laws prohibit doctors from refusing to serve certain patients.
The doctors have drawn support from 16 conservative law centers or religious organizations, ranging from former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese, who wrote the brief for the American Civil Rights Union, to the Foundation for Free Expression, a California group that calls homosexuality a "sin" in court papers and compares gay activists to "suicide bombers who would destroy themselves while they murder others." That brief drew a rebuke from the two doctors, who say neither supports "the tone of some of the references" or the "offensive language."
Benitez, meanwhile, received treatment at another facility and has given birth to a son, now 5, and twin daughters, now 2.
"People ask me, 'Why are you doing this? You have your kids,' " she says. "I want to make a difference. These doctors are not God. They cannot manipulate who can have children and who cannot."
Just a tiny fish
Posts: 125
August 6th, 2007, 04:25 AM
Well the discrimination against gay was mainly from religions. Ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese were ok with it because they were not really religious people.
But aren't we breaking the law of nature when we artificially inseminate those who can't get pregnant without this kind of help?
Well the discrimination against gay was mainly from religions. Ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese were ok with it because they were not really religious people.
But aren't we breaking the law of nature when we artificially inseminate those who can't get pregnant without this kind of help?
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
August 6th, 2007, 04:47 AM
I'm willing to concede choice to doctors over controversial procedures (eg abortion) but certainly not the choice of who to perform them on. If the doctor does the procedure at all he has no right to pick and choose who he does it for. To give it to him is no different than allowing doctors to refuse heart surgery to wife beaters. And no, I'm not choosing that example to be sensational since the obvious defense for the doctor will be a twisted form of tough love.
I'm willing to concede choice to doctors over controversial procedures (eg abortion) but certainly not the choice of who to perform them on. If the doctor does the procedure at all he has no right to pick and choose who he does it for. To give it to him is no different than allowing doctors to refuse heart surgery to wife beaters. And no, I'm not choosing that example to be sensational since the obvious defense for the doctor will be a twisted form of tough love.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,699
Location: California
Location: California
August 6th, 2007, 05:12 AM
Quoting smilingfish
We break the laws of nature any time we do anything in healthcare. No reason to only do it for certain types of people.
Well the discrimination against gay was mainly from religions. Ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese were ok with it because they were not really religious people.
But aren't we breaking the law of nature when we artificially inseminate those who can't get pregnant without this kind of help?
But aren't we breaking the law of nature when we artificially inseminate those who can't get pregnant without this kind of help?
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
August 6th, 2007, 05:17 AM
"The doctors say in court papers that they refused to treat Benitez because she is unmarried,"
makes the whole gay thing kinda moot. Nothing a good pre-nup couldn't clear up. Come to think of it now that the papers are filed it would pretty well put tweedledum and tweedledee on the nut.
come to think of it, seems to me "you're single" is pretty shaky grounds in itself. maybe that's the thing they should drag the insurance company in on. There must be some way of arguing breech on contract.
"The doctors say in court papers that they refused to treat Benitez because she is unmarried,"
makes the whole gay thing kinda moot. Nothing a good pre-nup couldn't clear up. Come to think of it now that the papers are filed it would pretty well put tweedledum and tweedledee on the nut.
come to think of it, seems to me "you're single" is pretty shaky grounds in itself. maybe that's the thing they should drag the insurance company in on. There must be some way of arguing breech on contract.
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
August 6th, 2007, 05:18 AM
how cheesy is that?
Quote:
gah
Cheryl Bray, a real estate broker, says she was humiliated when her doctor refused to perform a routine physical to allow her to complete an adoption of a baby from Mexico. When the doctor discovered she was single, he says he told her his religious beliefs require that children have two parents.
how cheesy is that?
Bright Spark
Posts: 447
August 6th, 2007, 07:48 AM
I dunno, in this particular case I think the freedom of religion card would trump the anti-discrimination one.
She can (and did) find another doctor without the "religious card" in order to achieve the desired result, which she did...twice. And her doctor maintains his compliance to religious dogma.
If he was forced to perform the service, he would have to compromise his religious principals, and if I were his patient, I would be looking for a more appropriate doctor anyhow!
I'm beginning to think this is a huge non-issue anyhow. Why would anyone want to see a physician whose religious persuasion thinks they're going to hell for who they are?
For example, why couldn't I compel my old eye doctor to sign a med-mar application for my glaucoma, but my new one will? The old one still "believes" it as a drug, while the new one knows otherwise.
BitWhys said: "I'm willing to concede choice to doctors over controversial procedures (eg abortion) but certainly not the choice of who to perform them on. If the doctor does the procedure at all he has no right to pick and choose who he does it for. To give it to him is no different than allowing doctors to refuse heart surgery to wife beaters."
BitWhys, what about in the case where a doctor regularly performs abortions, but suspects a patient is selectively aborting females to try to get a male?
I believe the abortion laws must have clauses that deal with doctors can decide whether or not they will perform abortions for particular patients.
Would it be OK to refuse the second or third liver transplant to a chronic alcohol abuser?
Muz
I dunno, in this particular case I think the freedom of religion card would trump the anti-discrimination one.
She can (and did) find another doctor without the "religious card" in order to achieve the desired result, which she did...twice. And her doctor maintains his compliance to religious dogma.
If he was forced to perform the service, he would have to compromise his religious principals, and if I were his patient, I would be looking for a more appropriate doctor anyhow!
I'm beginning to think this is a huge non-issue anyhow. Why would anyone want to see a physician whose religious persuasion thinks they're going to hell for who they are?
For example, why couldn't I compel my old eye doctor to sign a med-mar application for my glaucoma, but my new one will? The old one still "believes" it as a drug, while the new one knows otherwise.
BitWhys said: "I'm willing to concede choice to doctors over controversial procedures (eg abortion) but certainly not the choice of who to perform them on. If the doctor does the procedure at all he has no right to pick and choose who he does it for. To give it to him is no different than allowing doctors to refuse heart surgery to wife beaters."
BitWhys, what about in the case where a doctor regularly performs abortions, but suspects a patient is selectively aborting females to try to get a male?
I believe the abortion laws must have clauses that deal with doctors can decide whether or not they will perform abortions for particular patients.
Would it be OK to refuse the second or third liver transplant to a chronic alcohol abuser?
Muz
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
August 6th, 2007, 08:17 AM
Quoting Impetus
no she didn't. read the article again. its the only clinic her insurance covers.
...
She can (and did) find another doctor without the "religious card" in order to achieve the desired result, which she did...twice. And her doctor maintains his compliance to religious dogma...
She can (and did) find another doctor without the "religious card" in order to achieve the desired result, which she did...twice. And her doctor maintains his compliance to religious dogma...
Quoting Impetus
is there a law against that?
...
BitWhys, what about in the case where a doctor regularly performs abortions, but suspects a patient is selectively aborting females to try to get a male?...
BitWhys, what about in the case where a doctor regularly performs abortions, but suspects a patient is selectively aborting females to try to get a male?...
Bright Spark
Posts: 447
August 6th, 2007, 08:28 AM
"Benitez, meanwhile, received treatment at another facility and has given birth to a son, now 5, and twin daughters, now 2."
I believe that makes twice!
The beef should be with the insurer, not the clinic. Besides, what medical insurance covers artificial insemination, but only at one clinic? That sounds odd to me.
Muz
Quoting BitWhys
From the article...
no she didn't. read the article again. its the only clinic her insurance covers.
"Benitez, meanwhile, received treatment at another facility and has given birth to a son, now 5, and twin daughters, now 2."
I believe that makes twice!
The beef should be with the insurer, not the clinic. Besides, what medical insurance covers artificial insemination, but only at one clinic? That sounds odd to me.
Quoting BitWhys
Irrelevant. If the doctor "believes" that's the patient's motivation and it is contrary to his morals to assist in the act.
is there a law against that?
Muz
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
August 6th, 2007, 08:58 AM
Quoting Impetus
I missed that. Thanks. Being able to get around it still doesn't justify putting up the roadblock. Wouldn't surprise me if she had to shell out, in which case she DOES have in issue with the insurance provider and the insurance provider has an issue with the doctor. and the roadblock.
....
"Benitez, meanwhile, received treatment at another facility and has given birth to a son, now 5, and twin daughters, now 2."
I believe that makes twice!
"Benitez, meanwhile, received treatment at another facility and has given birth to a son, now 5, and twin daughters, now 2."
I believe that makes twice!
Quoting Impetus
Not to me. A contract is a contract. From what I hear those HMOs can be a real pain in the ass.
The beef should be with the insurer, not the clinic. Besides, what medical insurance covers artificial insemination, but only at one clinic? That sounds odd to me.
Quoting Impetus
so there's no law against it? Then since when are some unborn fetuses more equal than others?
Irrelevant. If the doctor "believes" that's the patient's motivation and it is contrary to his morals to assist in the act.
Muz
Muz
Theism Exorcist
Posts: 368
Location: The Capitol
Location: The Capitol
August 6th, 2007, 09:53 AM
There is such a thing as the law . And I don't think a doctor can choose who he performs a procedure on . I encourage morality in doctors , if a doctor chooses not to perform a procedure period I would understand and respect this , but to refuse to perform a procedure on select people based on a preexistent bias is in my opinion morally indefensible .
There is such a thing as the law . And I don't think a doctor can choose who he performs a procedure on . I encourage morality in doctors , if a doctor chooses not to perform a procedure period I would understand and respect this , but to refuse to perform a procedure on select people based on a preexistent bias is in my opinion morally indefensible .
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,837
August 6th, 2007, 12:16 PM
A thought;
No one can tell you which religion is valid and which isn't valid.
If he belonged to a small denomination which prohibited him helping Non-Christians (ones do exist) should be able to? What if his denomination refused to let him support mixed marriages (some do), what he belonged to some crazy cult which didn't let him treat people who didn't sign up with Tom Cruise and allow themselves to be milked for their money and subjected to "Xenu Rays" or some other malarky?
If you don't want to be a doctor because you might have to do things against your religion, you could always do something else.
A thought;
No one can tell you which religion is valid and which isn't valid.
If he belonged to a small denomination which prohibited him helping Non-Christians (ones do exist) should be able to? What if his denomination refused to let him support mixed marriages (some do), what he belonged to some crazy cult which didn't let him treat people who didn't sign up with Tom Cruise and allow themselves to be milked for their money and subjected to "Xenu Rays" or some other malarky?
If you don't want to be a doctor because you might have to do things against your religion, you could always do something else.
Steven Hawking's Hero
Posts: 6,445
September 10th, 2007, 06:56 AM
The choice the doctor has made is the same choice the nation gives gay couples.
If one doctor is against the procedure for religious reasons (this is an overworked reason but it is accepted without argument for so many), there are at least thirty more who would be available for the couple.
Making an issue out of one or two hard cases isn't positive these days - it's more like whining and continuing the negative spin which should be over and done with... Old News...Bad News ... stop recyclling the stuff. All kinds of couples seek and obtain assistance in having children and they don't go to court to make it happen - it's a bloody waste of court time and money.
Doctors have the right of refusal - and if activists are going to keep hunting them down for their beliefs, soon activists will have a difficult time getting a doctor who will help a desperate couple out of litigation fears.
This just isn't a great reason to create human life... by whatever means to prove a point. This woman should decide if she wants to be a good parent, or to be an activist.
The choice the doctor has made is the same choice the nation gives gay couples.
If one doctor is against the procedure for religious reasons (this is an overworked reason but it is accepted without argument for so many), there are at least thirty more who would be available for the couple.
Making an issue out of one or two hard cases isn't positive these days - it's more like whining and continuing the negative spin which should be over and done with... Old News...Bad News ... stop recyclling the stuff. All kinds of couples seek and obtain assistance in having children and they don't go to court to make it happen - it's a bloody waste of court time and money.
Doctors have the right of refusal - and if activists are going to keep hunting them down for their beliefs, soon activists will have a difficult time getting a doctor who will help a desperate couple out of litigation fears.
This just isn't a great reason to create human life... by whatever means to prove a point. This woman should decide if she wants to be a good parent, or to be an activist.
September 10th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Quoting smilingfish
If the docs felt that was the issue, they wouldn't be performing artificial insemination at all. To bend the laws of nature only for some people and not others means you can't fall back on that argument when you don't want to help a certain person.
Well the discrimination against gay was mainly from religions. Ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese were ok with it because they were not really religious people.
But aren't we breaking the law of nature when we artificially inseminate those who can't get pregnant without this kind of help?
But aren't we breaking the law of nature when we artificially inseminate those who can't get pregnant without this kind of help?
September 10th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Okay, so I have to ask... is this much different than the arbitrary decisions that adoption agencies make all throughout the US every single day? Most states deny adoption if you are single don't they? It would be the same situation if these women had attempted to adopt. They are gay, thus viewed as single. It's not like these doctors have stepped in and sterilized the woman, interfered with her natural ability to conceive, they've simply said they won't aid her attempts.
Okay, so I have to ask... is this much different than the arbitrary decisions that adoption agencies make all throughout the US every single day? Most states deny adoption if you are single don't they? It would be the same situation if these women had attempted to adopt. They are gay, thus viewed as single. It's not like these doctors have stepped in and sterilized the woman, interfered with her natural ability to conceive, they've simply said they won't aid her attempts.
