Originally Posted by tristanrobin

I can't believe that this had to go to court. Why would any doctor anywhere - but especially in CA - think they could get away with withholding medical treatment from a person based on their sexual orientation?!

If they want to live like that, they should at least be smart enough to live in the Ozarks.

Originally Posted by foundit66

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

Justice Joyce 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 led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said 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 inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

The law was originally designed to prevent hotels, restaurants and other public services from refusing to serve patrons because of their race. The Legislature has since expanded it to cover characteristics such as age and sexual orientation.

The Associated Press: Calif top court: Docs can't withhold care to gays

The courts got it right.

Originally Posted by saltwn

If she had babies with the referral OK, why did this woman sue?

Originally Posted by saltwn

Not discriminated against.

Originally Posted by saltwn

In fact the doctor who had beliefs contrary to what she was doing went out of his way to place her with someone who would help her.

Originally Posted by saltwn

This wasn't an emergency treatment. So I see the woman's entire lawsuit as bogus and just a way to take advantage of a professional's expensive insurance policy.

Originally Posted by saltwn

This was not a good case to base this type of law suit on. If there is a case where a doctor doesn't help the woman secure outside treatment, and she suffers because she becomes too old a risk to do the procedure, then THAT would be an excellent case for a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by saltwn

Another point I would like to make is Ladies and Gentlemen, please do not tell your doctor everything about your personal life. If it doesn't pertain to your health don't tell it at all. It's none of their business.

Originally Posted by saltwn

In fact people in general make judgments about you all the time. Don't give them any more fuel for their fire!

Originally Posted by saltwn

Now tell me why did this doctor know she was married or singe or gay or straight?
I want to have a baby. I can afford it. Here is some money . Do the procedure.
It's not an adoption agency.
Why do they ask these questions?

Originally Posted by foundit66

If a health care provider determined you were a Christian and said "I'm not going to treat you", would you say "Okay. No problem"?
I would hope not.



I think you need to review what "discrimination" means.
If he had done the same thing in a hotel setting, or food service, or housing or employment, would you think the same?



Some could argue that the people who point to the colored door or the colored drinking fountain have given the same courtesy.



Being elective can be a factor in some people's eyes, but I don't see it as significant enough to ignore the law.



I don't see why you should have to prove harm in discrimination before it is illegal.
Did Rosa Parks have to prove her shoes were more worn out by having to sit at the back of the bus? Was she harmed in any way?



1) Some people say that gays should tell their health care provider to address any special concerns. Different risks for different issues.

2) This is unrealistic in a variety of ways.
Health care insurance typically requires information on the couple. For a fertility clinic, it wouldn't be realistic to expect the husband to just wait in the car. People talk about how long "they" have been trying...



I agree completely.
But at the same time, for people who work "at the office", how long does it take before you realize who is married and who isn't?



Insurance paperwork.
The partner went to the office with her.
There are a variety of ways.

If we turned this around and started talking about how the doctor should "hide" the reasons for refusal of service, would you think that just as reasonable?