Calif Top Court: Docs Can't Withhold Care to Gays

Partly Cloudy
	Temp: 30 F (-1 C) Humidity: 82 Heat Index: NA F

Save

Posted: 11:56 AM Aug 18, 2008
Last Updated: 12:42 PM Aug 18, 2008
Reporter: Paul Elias AP

4 comments

Poll

A | A | A

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's high court Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

Should doctors be allowed to discriminate against patients based on the doctor’s religious beliefs?

Yes

In contrast to the state Supreme Court's 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage, which resulted in lengthy majority and dissenting opinions, the unanimous ruling Monday was a succinct 18 pages written by Justice Joyce Kennard.

Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that spurred the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.

The case drew numerous "friends of the court" briefs from a wide variety of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay rights community, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors.

The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.

More Stories
Suicide Case: Cyberspace Law or Human Drama?

California Firefighters Make Gains on Fires

Paralyzed Calif. Man Loses High Court Appeal

Citigroup Expected To Cut 53,000 More Jobs

Racehorse Exercise Rider Killed In Freak Accident

Oakland Adds New Officers To Undermanned Force

4 Killed In Napa Valley Wreck

Southern Calif. Firefighters Aided By Calmer Winds

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: John Location: Reno on Aug 19, 2008 at 08:03 AM
Perhaps if we allow doctors to discriminate against a certain type of people. What, then, is to stop doctors from discriminating based on other, arbitrary criteria. Should an anti-semite doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to jews? Should they be allowed to refuse treatment based on hair color? Or perhaps freckles? Imagine your loved one inthe emergency room being refused care by a doctor because of some prejudice they hold. Would that be fair? No.

Posted by: Caroline Location: Sparks on Aug 18, 2008 at 07:48 PM
Yes! A doctor should be allowed to choose which patient he/she chooses to see. It is wrong to force a healthcare professional to provide care to a gay woman against their own religious beliefs. Besides, I would rather see a doctor who is WILLING to provide me with optimal medical attention than one who is FORCED to give me care. Why start on the wrong foot?

Posted by: Steve Location: Sparks on Aug 18, 2008 at 06:32 PM
I would like to add, it is ridiculous that this ruling was made based on law that does not take into consideration the unique circumstances of this case. This is a great way to force our professionals out of the USA to a country that allows Freedom. Is this "Less Government"?

Posted by: Steve Location: Sparks on Aug 18, 2008 at 06:22 PM
It is important to understand that this case had to do with doctor's refusing to inseminate a lesbian woman. This was not a case of doctor's refusing health-related care. What logic can we provide to force someone to break their own religious beliefs? We are losing our rights little by little. First business owners lost their right to decide if they wanted to serve smokers, now doctors are forced to provide optional procedures against their will. Perhaps these lose of rights don't effect you in a negative way, but we a surrendering the freedoms that we, as Americans pride ourselves upon. Perhaps we need to think why would someone what to force a decision upon someone else rather than seek services elsewhere? I would much rather seek care from a doctor that did not discriminate against me than force a doctor against their will. AGAIN, this is NOT a case of emergency or even Health-related care that is being refused.