December 05, 2005
A United States appeal court has backed two fertility doctors who refused to treat a lesbian patient because it would have violated their religious beliefs.The woman, Guadalupe Benitez, sued the doctors after she was turned down for artificial insemination in 1999. She claimed that on her first visit to the women's clinic in a suburb of San Diego, California, one of the doctors, Christine Brody, told her that she would not perform the procedure on a lesbian because of her faith.
She was initially told that another doctor at the clinic would perform the procedure but after nearly a year of being put off, Ms Benitez alleges that Dr Brody told her nobody in the four-person clinic would treat her. The other doctor named in the suit is Douglas Fenton.
The appeal court ruling allows the doctors to use religious liberty as a defence in the anti-discrimination lawsuit. The decision overturned a lower court ruling.
The case has been closely watched across the US - testing as it does the overlapping rights of the increasingly political religious community and the gay community. The California Medical Association and the Christian Medical and Dental Association joined in the doctors' defence.
Now I do have some qualms here.
First, I do not like the way in which the Ms. Benitez was seemingly strung along. The practice should have been up-front about their position on the issue.
Second, I assume that the decision limits the right to refuse treatment to only elective procedures or non-critical treatments. There is a moral duty to protect life that would certainly override any religiously based preference to avoid treating individuals whose lifestyle contradicts one's beliefs.
But the broader point – that professionals do not surrender their rights under the First Amendment by accepting a license to engage in their profession – is an important one.
HERE'S MORE: From How Appealing.
Posted by: Greg at
12:56 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.
The first amendment protects freedom of religion and that means all other rights and responsibilities be damned! It's just like these liberal panseys trying to tell pharmacists they have to work.
In fact I was just thinking today that I was going to go tell my boss that my entire job conflicts with my religious beliefs. And he better not try to fire me either because the First Amendment guarantees that I don't have to fulfill anypart of my job that conflicts with my religious beliefs.
Sure I COULD just get a job that didn't conflict with my religious beliefs but that'd be no good. Instead I'll just demand pay for no work!
Posted by: Mr. GOP at Tue Dec 6 03:37:21 2005 (YAEN3)
The Doctors are doing "ELECTIVE" surgery, not "Life Threatening".
There is a difference, and when a doctor does Elective surgeries they have more leeway than doctors in an Emergency Room.
No one said Emergency Room doctors can get away with using Religion as a way to get out of helping someone. I have yet to meet a Doctor that worked the Emergency Room at a Hospital who stopped a patient to ask them A/S/L ! It just doesn't happen.
The only people who can't tell the difference are the reality impaired liberals.
To them, if you don't tow the liberal party line, you are wrong no matter what.
Posted by: Scubachris at Tue Dec 6 04:56:46 2005 (AktpP)
Clearly the First Amendment makes no distinction between life-saving or "elective" procedures. Besides fertility doctors don't generally perform "life-saving" procedures anyhow. Clearly, your "point" is moot, and the First Amendment protects these doctors from doing any of their work.
Why do you hate the freedom of religion?
Posted by: Mr.GOP at Tue Dec 6 07:29:55 2005 (YAEN3)
21 queries taking 0.0083 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.