|
|
ATWT Discussion Group
This comes from a case in Vista, CA where a lesbian woman sued a doctor for refusing to provide artificial insemination on her. However, the doctor did refer her to another doctor who did do it and she now has a cute little 6 year old according to the picture in our newpaper.
Once again, the liberal Calif supreme court has ruled that doctors can't refuse 'full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation.'
I realize that this woman wants to make a statement and if I were a lesbian, I might do the same thing but I doubt it. She got the treatment. She has a lovely child so why does she need to sue the doctor?
In fact, I had a similar situation when I was in my 20s and the Mom of 2 kids. I wanted a tubal ligation and the gyn that I went to refused to do it. His rationale was that I might regret it later as I might want more kids, my husband could die and I might remarry and want a kid with the new husband, etc. I would never have considered suing him for his beliefs. He felt that he would only sterilize women who had had at least 4 kids. He wasn't the only doctor in the world so I found another one who would perform the procedure for me.
Does this now mean that doctors who are opposed to abortion should be forced to do them anyhow? Is there any real difference between abortion and artificial insemination if that's what a woman wants (in the way of medical treatment?)
Once again, I think the Calif supreme court has made a mistake but that's what happens with liberal judges. JMHO.
For your consideration:
SERVICE MANAGER TO CUSTOMER AT AUTO DEALERSHIP REPAIR CENTER:
''Sorry, but I'm not authorizing the repair of your SUV even though it's clearly still under the extended warranty contract you purchased from our agent a year ago. And while it's true I'm the manufacturer's only dealer in the county -- quite honestly -- it makes no difference to me that you're now going to have to have the darn thing towed 100 miles at your own expense to the next closest dealer with a certified mechanic .... because I saw you cheating on your wife last weekend and adultery is sin, and I don't want to be a party to you driving around in that SUV with your mistress.''
Replies: (list all replies)
Like most people, I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who found me or the procedure morally repugnant. Guadalupe Benitez probably feels the same way. Her lawsuit (which is still being decided by a lower court) isn't about forcing these two doctors to act against their religion. It's about telling them to make that choice before they accept a job providing a service that the law promises to everyone equally. If Dr. Christine Brody and Dr. Douglas Fenton aren't willing to perform artificial insemination on all women who qualify under the law, they shouldn't be allowed to provide it just to the elite class of their choice. Whether they stipulate that their patients must be heterosexual or that they must be married should not be the issue. (Unfortunately, it has been an issue because this lawsuit was brought before the California Supreme Court made it clear that discrimination on the basis of marital status is also prohibited.) The law must not allow doctors to give special status to anyone, or to turn anyone away. Ms. Benitez had to go outside her insurance plan to get inseminated. A heterosexual woman (or, as the doctors now claim, a married woman) would not have had to bear that expense. Is that fair?
The legal principle that the California Supreme Court upheld in this decision is that the service provider's freedom of religion is not a loophole in the law against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Drs. Brody and Fenton cannot get Ms. Benitez's lawsuit thrown out of court simply by saying, ''It's our religion.'' If the court had changed the law so that individual doctors could discriminate with impunity, what is to stop hospitals and clinics from hiring doctors with a tacit understanding that racial and sexual minorities won't receive treatment that is covered by their insurance plans? If applied to other professions, the supremacy of freedom of religion would allow Muslim taxi drivers to say, ''Leave that alcohol behind at the airport, or we won't provide transportation to your hotel,'' and Muslim gas station attendants could say, ''Our religion forbids women to travel without male chaperones, so we fill tanks for male drivers only.'' Is that what the First Amendment is supposed to protect?
Some people have commented that because Ms. Benitez was able to find someone else to perform the insemination, and it wasn't an emergency procedure, this must be a frivolous lawsuit, ''an axe to grind.'' It is not. Because Ms. Benitez took the time out of her life to bring this matter to the court's attention, the law has been made clear to those who want to violate it according to their own prejudices, and future victims of discrimination may have been spared a fight that they could not afford.
I pity the poor doctor. He'll probably lose in court. His malpractice insurance will go up and we'll all pay for that.
The United States is the most litiginous country in the world. One time when I was living in Australia, I went to the grocery store at night. The parking lot was not lit and there was an open trench had no barrier and was not marked. I fell in, banged up my leg and ruined the pant suit I was wearing. I asked the grocery store (large chain that has stores in the US) to replace the pant suit. No deal. And I was told by my Aussie friends that I should just suck it up which is just what I did. Can you see that happening in the U. S.?
Our system is out of whack when people can get large settlements for such things as spilling hot coffee on themselves. Of course the tort lawyers are the ones who make the money. People who bring these silly suits should have to pay court costs when they lose them.
Replies: (list all replies)
Replies: (list all replies)