Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Female Info Boards => Open Talk for Girl Discussion => Topic started by: BayGBM on August 07, 2007, 03:42:19 PM
-
Doctors accused of using faith to violate gay bias laws
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."
-
Doctors accused of using faith to violate gay bias laws
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
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."
She obviously wants attention. Otherwise why wuntil three children later to raise a fuss?
I would have rejected her for being too old.
-
Try again. She raised a fuss from the beginning. “Court wrangling over pretrial issues consumed three years.” You obviously never took Civil Procedure.
-
People that age shouldn't be making babies.
-
People that age shouldn't be making babies.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/snarl.gif)
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/snarl.gif)
Why what age are you :)
-
Religion and medicine should not intertwine here in the United States. If you are practicing medicine here you take an oath to provide medical assistance to those who need it, not make your own decisions on such because of your faith. I believe if you want to practice under such then it must be outlined in your Medical Journals and Licenses.
-
Why what age are you :)
My age is irrelevant. I hate discrimination of any kind, and will always stand up for those whose rights are violated, whether I happen to be in a priviledged or protected class or not. I stand for justice.
-
My age is irrelevant. I hate discrimination of any kind, and will always stand up for those whose rights are violated, whether I happen to be in a priviledged or protected class or not. I stand for justice.
Powerpack bit off more than he could chew, LOL!
Why in the heck should a doctor help some poor have a single grandma for a mommy during highschool?
-
Doctors accused of using faith to violate gay bias laws
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
When the doctor discovered she was single, he says he told her his religious beliefs require that children have two parents.
seems to me as long as we have separation of church and state she has legal grounds for a lawsuit
-
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 see she has a case because they took her money for 11 months and THEN told her they wouldn't follow through.
But I do not think unless a life is at risk a doctor has to do something that goes against their religion or personal morals. They do have to refer the person somewhere else though.
We discussed doctors refusing to do stuff on the religion board not to long ago. Should a doctor have to perform an abortion if it goes against their religion/morals? I don't think they should have to, but they should have to refer them to someone else.
I think it is that persons right to not do something that he feels is against his faith. BUT they should have said that before treating her for 11 months. She has a case for that being fraudulent.
-
Religion and medicine should not intertwine here in the United States. If you are practicing medicine here you take an oath to provide medical assistance to those who need it, not make your own decisions on such because of your faith. I believe if you want to practice under such then it must be outlined in your Medical Journals and Licenses.
You think she NEEDED artificial insemination?
-
You think she NEEDED artificial insemination?
Of course, LOL!
5yr old boys and twin girls need ancient parents. When they graduate high school and mommy is damn near retired they can help take care of her instead of attending college. :)
-
My age is irrelevant. I hate discrimination of any kind, and will always stand up for those whose rights are violated, whether I happen to be in a priviledged or protected class or not. I stand for justice.
Oooooooooh prickly, that was an attempt at humour Jag ;)
I stand for justice and commen sense for EVERY one!
Just because some one has the right to do some thing does not make it right for them or the people it will effect.
VIVA!!!! ;D
-
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."
. . .
Benitez, meanwhile, received treatment at another facility and has given birth to a son, now 5, and twin daughters, now 2.
Good grief. The doctor referred her to someone else and she now has three kids. Yet another needless lawsuit clogging the court system. Sounds like folks trying to advance a political agenda.
-
Well Beach, ...how would you feel if your wife, or one of your children needed a blood transfusion to save their lives, but the procedure was neither given nor recommended because your physician was a Jehovah's Witness? Are we now to demand to know the religious beliefs of every service practicioner we interact with? What good would that do us even if we did? Unless we are completely versed in the dogmas and tenets of every religion, such knowledge does us little good anyway. To be required to do that would turn the US into a state similar to one of those radical Islamic countries where one wears their ideological or theological beliefs on their arms... or heads as the case may be. (colored head scarfs). Does that mean when we hire a lawn maintenance company we have to check first to ascertain their religion in order to make sure they will indeed kill the weeds? Afterall, ...they could be wiccan can consider all biological plant life sacred. Does that mean that those who worship at the alter of Versace can refuse to provide medical care to those who dress in Walmart or Kmart's blue light special? Are we stating that Dick Cheney's daughter would make a far less suitable parent because of her orientation than Joan Crawford? I'd rather have a lesbian with a sound head on her shoulders raising future members of society than an abusive, narcissistic, nymphomaniac with obssesions about wire hangers just because she was heterosexual. Good Grief people! Next you'll be saying it was ok for Muslim doctors to refuse medical services to you or your families because they disapprove of your lifestyles and your willingness to allow your women to appear in public unaccompanied by a male relative and without burkas! And before anyone starts with the racist rhetoric (even tho this is the women's board) I'd like to point out that not all Muslims are brown.
You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything, and separation of church and state exists for a reason.
Practice your religious beliefs, ...but do not force them on others, ...and if you're going to live in a secular society, interacting within a secular society, ...then do so. Otherwise pack up and move elsewhere to form your own society where you're free to practice what you want... just like the Morons did when moving to what is now present day Utah.
-
Well Beach, ...how would you feel if your wife, or one of your children needed a blood transfusion to save their lives, but the procedure was neither given nor recommended because your physician was a Jehovah's Witness? Are we now to demand to know the religious beliefs of every service practicioner we interact with? What good would that do us even if we did? Unless we are completely versed in the dogmas and tenets of every religion, such knowledge does us little good anyway. To be required to do that would turn the US into a state similar to one of those radical Islamic countries where one wears their ideological or theological beliefs on their arms... or heads as the case may be. (colored head scarfs). Does that mean when we hire a lawn maintenance company we have to check first to ascertain their religion in order to make sure they will indeed kill the weeds? Afterall, ...they could be wiccan can consider all biological plant life sacred. Does that mean that those who worship at the alter of Versace can refuse to provide medical care to those who dress in Walmart or Kmart's blue light special? Are we stating that Dick Cheney's daughter would make a far less suitable parent because of her orientation than Joan Crawford? I'd rather have a lesbian with a sound head on her shoulders raising future members of society than an abusive, narcissistic, nymphomaniac with obssesions about wire hangers just because she was heterosexual. Good Grief people! Next you'll be saying it was ok for Muslim doctors to refuse medical services to you or your families because they disapprove of your lifestyles and your willingness to allow your women to appear in public unaccompanied by a male relative and without burkas! And before anyone starts with the racist rhetoric (even tho this is the women's board) I'd like to point out that not all Muslims are brown.
You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything, and separation of church and state exists for a reason.
Practice your religious beliefs, ...but do not force them on others, ...and if you're going to live in a secular society, interacting within a secular society, ...then do so. Otherwise pack up and move elsewhere to form your own society where you're free to practice what you want... just like the Morons did when moving to what is now present day Utah.
What a beautiful display of semantic obfuscation. :)
Artificial insemination is not a lifesaving procedure.
-
What a beautiful display of semantic obfuscation. :)
Artificial insemination is not a lifesaving procedure.
That's not the point. The point is religion should not play a part in a medical procedure. If the woman was married to a man and they couldn't conceive...there would be no problem, but because the woman is gay he has a problem with the procedure due to religion? It's just wrong, she's not there for insight to religion, she's there to get pregnant and he chose to be a doctor...not a preacher.
-
That's not the point. The point is religion should not play a part in a medical procedure. If the woman was married to a man and they couldn't conceive...there would be no problem, but because the woman is gay he has a problem with the procedure due to religion? It's just wrong, she's not there for insight to religion, she's there to get pregnant and he chose to be a doctor...not a preacher.
So do you think a doctor should have to preform an abortion if he thinks it is wrong or feels it is killing? He should be forced to kill?
As for Jag's blood transfusion reference - I hope there is at least ONE doctor at the hospital who isn't a Jehovah and could give the transfusion. ::)
Here's the thread on the Religion Board:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=155968.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=155968.0)
-
So do you think a doctor should have to preform an abortion if he thinks it is wrong or feels it is killing? He should be forced to kill?
As for Jag's blood transfusion reference - I hope there is at least ONE doctor at the hospital who isn't a Jehovah and could give the transfusion. ::)
I'm not for termination of baby as a form of birth control, but as a victim of rape, yes, unless the doctor would like to carry the child to term, deliver it and either pass it along to an adoption agency or care for it for the next 18 years. I also believe that is a far different story than saying you won't artificially inseminate a woman because she's gay, or a single woman due to your religious beliefs.
-
I'm not for termination of baby as a form of birth control, but as a victim of rape, yes, unless the doctor would like to carry the child to term, deliver it and either pass it along to an adoption agency or care for it for the next 18 years. I also believe that is a far different story than saying you won't artificially inseminate a woman because she's gay, or a single woman due to your religious beliefs.
I think even in the case of rape the doctor can refuse to do an abortion as long as he refers her case to someone who will do it. But if I understand what you are saying, your are determining what reasons are valid to say no, if it is a form of birth control he can say no, but it is because of rape he can't? If the doctor believes that abortion is a form of murder he will suddenly find it acceptable to murder an innocent? I don't think so.
You can't pick and chose. If the procedure is not a medical emergency then IMO, I think a doctor has a right to refuse as long as he refers her to someone else.
In the case that was the start of this thread, I think the Dr was fraudulent because he treated her for 11months and THEN told her he wouldn't see it through. He should of not taken her as a patient from the start.
-
I think even in the case of rape the doctor can refuse to do an abortion as long as he refers her case to someone who will do it. But if I understand what you are saying, your are determining what reasons are valid to say no, if it is a form of birth control he can say no, but it is because of rape he can't? If the doctor believes that abortion is a form of murder he will suddenly find it acceptable to murder an innocent? I don't think so.
You can't pick and chose. If the procedure is not a medical emergency then IMO, I think a doctor has a right to refuse as long as he refers her to someone else.
In the case that was the start of this thread, I think the Dr was fraudulent because he treated her for 11months and THEN told her he wouldn't see it through. He should of not taken her as a patient from the start.
Not really, saying you won't perform an abortion because you feel like you are taking a life and not giving a life is one thing. It isn't a religous reason, it's because they feel like they are killing a life. Stating you are not going to "give" life because your religion says it's wrong for 2 gays to be together, to love each other enough to bring a life into the world (as any other loving couple would) is definitely wrong, in my book.
-
Not really, saying you won't perform an abortion because you feel like you are taking a life and not giving a life is one thing. It isn't a religous reason, it's because they feel like they are killing a life. Stating you are not going to "give" life because your religion says it's wrong for 2 gays to be together, to love each other enough to bring a life into the world (as any other loving couple would) is definitely wrong, in my book.
or their religion is against abortion, and is against non heterosexual relationships.
I am not saying I agree with their views, but I do think it is their right to have those views and if it not an emergency they shouldn't have to go against their views and do something they feel is not right. Then THEY(the doctor) would be committing a sin in their eyes. How can you force someone to commit a sin that is not a medical emergency/necessity?
-
or their religion is against abortion, and is against non heterosexual relationships.
I am not saying I agree with their views, but I do think it is their right to have those views and if it not an emergency they shouldn't have to go against their views and do something they feel is not right. Then THEY(the doctor) would be committing a sin in their eyes. How can you force someone to commit a sin that is not a medical emergency/necessity?
If they choose not to do it for everyone, then fine, but to say yes to heterosexuals and no to homosexuals for the sake of religious purpose is wrong.
And as far as forcing someone to commit a sin...I believe when you are going to medical school you are faced with all possible scenarious of the medical world. If you feel your religion is more forth coming than medical oath...you don't belong in general medicine. They should be specialized, stating they are religiously correct (so to speak). Then the patient is aware and will look for a more suited doctor to take care of their personal needs.
-
WOW!........................ ....that's a lot of reading
(is there a "summary" key?)
-
If they choose not to do it for everyone, then fine, but to say yes to heterosexuals and no to homosexuals for the sake of religious purpose is wrong.
And as far as forcing someone to commit a sin...I believe when you are going to medical school you are faced with all possible scenarious of the medical world. If you feel your religion is more forth coming than medical oath...you don't belong in general medicine. They should be specialized, stating they are religiously correct (so to speak). Then the patient is aware and will look for a more suited doctor to take care of their personal needs.
Isn't a fertility doctor specialized? A doctor is still a person, and that person had a private practice. They are not working for the state, or government, but privately. I think they can refuse non medical emergency treatment on their beliefs.
I still see that what they did wrong was treat her for 11 months and then tell her they couldn't continue because of beliefs. They never should of treated her in the first place then.
Based on what limited information has been presented on this particular case, if I had to rule on it, I would fine them for the 11months of treatment and then not following through as being fraudulent.
-
Isn't a fertility doctor specialized? A doctor is still a person, and that person had a private practice. They are not working for the state, or government, but privately. I think they can refuse non medical emergency treatment on their beliefs.
I still see that what they did wrong was treat her for 11 months and then tell her they couldn't continue because of beliefs. They never should of treated her in the first place then.
Based on what limited information has been presented on this particular case, if I had to rule on it, I would fine them for the 11months of treatment and then not following through as being fraudulent.
That's what I mean...there should be some kind of verbage stating they practice under religious beliefs.
-
That's not the point. The point is religion should not play a part in a medical procedure. If the woman was married to a man and they couldn't conceive...there would be no problem, but because the woman is gay he has a problem with the procedure due to religion? It's just wrong, she's not there for insight to religion, she's there to get pregnant and he chose to be a doctor...not a preacher.
I'm glad to see some women on this board get it.
As I said previously in the thread on landscapers who refused service to a gay couple: "ignorance and bigotry can affect you too" which is why all of us must confront it where ever we find it. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=105322.0
The idea that a doctor will perform services for patients only after determining that the patient’s private life passes the doctor's religious litmus test is unacceptable. >:(
-
Well Beach, ...how would you feel if your wife, or one of your children needed a blood transfusion to save their lives, but the procedure was neither given nor recommended because your physician was a Jehovah's Witness? Are we now to demand to know the religious beliefs of every service practicioner we interact with? What good would that do us even if we did? Unless we are completely versed in the dogmas and tenets of every religion, such knowledge does us little good anyway. To be required to do that would turn the US into a state similar to one of those radical Islamic countries where one wears their ideological or theological beliefs on their arms... or heads as the case may be. (colored head scarfs). Does that mean when we hire a lawn maintenance company we have to check first to ascertain their religion in order to make sure they will indeed kill the weeds? Afterall, ...they could be wiccan can consider all biological plant life sacred. Does that mean that those who worship at the alter of Versace can refuse to provide medical care to those who dress in Walmart or Kmart's blue light special? Are we stating that Dick Cheney's daughter would make a far less suitable parent because of her orientation than Joan Crawford? I'd rather have a lesbian with a sound head on her shoulders raising future members of society than an abusive, narcissistic, nymphomaniac with obssesions about wire hangers just because she was heterosexual. Good Grief people! Next you'll be saying it was ok for Muslim doctors to refuse medical services to you or your families because they disapprove of your lifestyles and your willingness to allow your women to appear in public unaccompanied by a male relative and without burkas! And before anyone starts with the racist rhetoric (even tho this is the women's board) I'd like to point out that not all Muslims are brown.
You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything, and separation of church and state exists for a reason.
Practice your religious beliefs, ...but do not force them on others, ...and if you're going to live in a secular society, interacting within a secular society, ...then do so. Otherwise pack up and move elsewhere to form your own society where you're free to practice what you want... just like the Morons did when moving to what is now present day Utah.
Your blood transfusion hypothetical is unrealistic. I'm unaware of doctors refusing life-saving treatment on religious grounds. I doubt a doctor could keep his or her license, and stay out of jail, if that happened.
This is an elective procedure. If the patient doesn't like his/her doctor's religious convictions, the patient can go somewhere else.
This isn't a church-separation issue at all . . . at least as far as the patient is concerned. It does involve the doctor's free exercise of religion.
This is really a mountain out of a molehill. Elective procedure. Woman got what she wanted. Three kids. Shouldn't be a national (or even local) story.
-
That's not the point. The point is religion should not play a part in a medical procedure. If the woman was married to a man and they couldn't conceive...there would be no problem, but because the woman is gay he has a problem with the procedure due to religion? It's just wrong, she's not there for insight to religion, she's there to get pregnant and he chose to be a doctor...not a preacher.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Choosing to become a doctor doesn't mean you've lost the right to non medical opinions.
Even in a world where nothing's wrong anymore and people have a right to do whatevr they can afford... occasionally someone is told no. Nature and time conspired against this woman having kids yet she has three. At some point people like this should concentrate on their kids instead of continually seeking attention and approval.
I'm glad to see some women on this board get it.
As I said previously in the thread on landscapers who refused service to a gay couple: "ignorance and bigotry can affect you too" which is why all of us must confront it where ever we find it. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=105322.0
The idea that a doctor will perform services for patients only after determining that the patient’s private life passes the doctor's religious litmus test is unacceptable. >:(
Total BS, as usual.
-
So do you think a doctor should have to preform an abortion if he thinks it is wrong or feels it is killing? He should be forced to kill?
~Flower~,
The problem in this case was the doctor's disapproval NOT of the procedure, ...but rather of the patient.
It's like saying I don't have a problem doing boob jobs, ...I just won't do them on Asians.
It's as discriminatory as a bank telling you I won't give you a loan to buy a house because you're a single woman.
You should instead find yourself a husband, ...then after you're married, ...they'd be happy to give you that mortgage so you can buy the house.
To quote an intelligent poster on this board:
"Your body, Your choice!" ;)
-
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Choosing to become a doctor doesn't mean you've lost the right to non medical opinions.
Even in a world where nothing's wrong anymore and people have a right to do whatevr they can afford... occasionally someone is told no. Nature and time conspired against this woman having kids yet she has three. At some point people like this should concentrate on their kids instead of continually seeking attention and approval.
I don't think what "people like here" are seeking is attention and approval, but rather equality under the law,
as promised in the Constitution and guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
-
I don't think what "people like here" are seeking is attention and approval, but rather equality under the law,
as promised in the Constitution and guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
What section of the US Constitution gurantees artificial insemination?
-
Your blood transfusion hypothetical is unrealistic. I'm unaware of doctors refusing life-saving treatment on religious grounds. I doubt a doctor could keep his or her license, and stay out of jail, if that happened.
This is an elective procedure. If the patient doesn't like his/her doctor's religious convictions, the patient can go somewhere else.
Not under your American style health insurance she couldn't.
This isn't a church-separation issue at all . . . at least as far as the patient is concerned. It does involve the doctor's free exercise of religion.
Where in his religion does it say he is to deprive services to unmarried gay women? I'm not as well versed in religious dogma as you. Could you clarify the specific passage from the Bible, torah, or koran respectively.
This is really a mountain out of a molehill. Elective procedure. Woman got what she wanted. Three kids. Shouldn't be a national (or even local) story.
One man's trash is another man's treasure, ...and one man's molehill is another woman's mountain. ;)
-
Most of those guys would inseminate a bed-ridden geriatric for enough money.
-
Not under your American style health insurance she couldn't.
Where in his religion does it say he is to deprive services to unmarried gay women? I'm not as well versed in religious dogma as you. Could you clarify the specific passage from the Bible, torah, or koran respectively.
One man's trash is another man's treasure, ...and one man's molehill is another woman's mountain. ;)
1. She got her elective procedure and now has three kids.
2. I have no idea precisely what this doctor's religious convictions are. It doesn't really matter anyway. It's about his conscience. You or anyone else don't have to agree with his convictions.
3. Re mountain out of molehill, see no. 1.
-
1. She got her elective procedure and now has three kids.
At what additional and unecessary expense? He was the only physician covered by her insurance
2. I have no idea precisely what this doctor's religious convictions are. It doesn't really matter anyway. It's about his conscience. You or anyone else don't have to agree with his convictions.
His conscience didn't seem to bother him when he was taking the money while treating her for 11 months.
His conscience shouldn't enter into anything. He was performing a procedure on a patient. That's like saying "My conscience prevents me from doing elective plastic surgery on this patient because... he's a bodybuilder, and we all know what great big closet homos they are. I could never lift the wrinkles from this man's face, or lift his lids knowing he might use his renewed appearance to seduce another man into that evil lifestyle.
3. Re mountain out of molehill, see no. 1.
::) It's the principal of equality and civil rights... a tremendous mountain to overcome if you're gay in America
-
It's getting pretty deep in here.
This is obviously a sensitive issue for someone. ::)
-
At what additional and unecessary expense? He was the only physician covered by her insurance
His conscience didn't seem to bother him when he was taking the money while treating her for 11 months.
His conscience shouldn't enter into anything. He was performing a procedure on a patient. That's like saying "My conscience prevents me from doing elective plastic surgery on this patient because... he's a bodybuilder, and we all know what great big closet homos they are. I could never lift the wrinkles from this man's face, or lift his lids knowing he might use his renewed appearance to seduce another man into that evil lifestyle.
::) It's the principal of equality and civil rights... a tremendous mountain to overcome if you're gay in America
They did, ...but Moley took care of it.
uh-huh... are we getting skeered yet? :)
1. Was there an additional expense? I doubt her insurance covered one doctor.
2. A doctor should always be able to perform or not perform an elective procedure based on his or her conscience. First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion (under some conditions). He/she can just refer the patient elsewhere. Not a big deal.
3. Doesn't sound like this has anything to do with civil rights. She didn't have a civil or constitutional right to force this doctor to perform an elective procedure, rather than refer her to someone who helped her have three kids.
-
We're probably reading too much into her zeal to defend the aged's reproductive rights. :)
Careful now. We have to play nice on this board. :) I can already see Jag's finger headed for the "report to moderator" button . . . . :D
That was a joke Jag.
-
Careful now. We have to play nice on this board. :) I can already see Jag's finger headed for the "report to moderator" button . . . . :D
That was a joke Jag.
Yes you do. :) Please save all shitty replies to people (not aimed at you Beach or anyone in particular) for the other boards. Dr. J you seem quite passionate about your views on women and you have plenty of boards to make them known. :) Try to see things from a woman's perspective here. Lost cause, but I'm waiting for a lift, so I guess I can spend time on Getbig for a few mins, asking for the impossible. :)
Please save all discussions pertaining to anything that might involve religion or conscience (conscience that implies women are lesser, and/or should be fat) for other boards. Now I must go shopping.
I deleted a few antagonizing posts. Sorry.
-
We're probably reading too much into her zeal to defend the aged's reproductive rights.
I thought we were defending the reproductive rights of lesbians?
Don't be a smarty pants, the doctor didn't object to her age, he objectived to her sexual orientation.
Careful now. We have to play nice on this board. :) I can already see Jag's finger headed for the "report to moderator" button . . . . :D
That was a joke Jag.
Keep watching my finger
-
Yes you do. :) Please save all shitty replies to people (not aimed at you Beach or anyone in particular) for the other boards. Dr. J you seem quite passionate about your views on women and you have plenty of boards to make them known. :) Try to see things from a woman's perspective here. Lost cause, but I'm waiting for a lift, so I guess I can spend time on Getbig for a few mins, asking for the impossible. :)
Please save all discussions pertaining to anything that might involve religion or conscience (conscience that implies women are lesser, and/or should be fat) for other boards. Now I must go shopping.
I deleted a few antagonizing posts. Sorry.
Someone should really post the health stats (as adults) for children born to mothers over 35. That would put the discussion into perspective. Just because someone can afford to do something doesn't make it a right.
I love lesbians!!!
-
~Flower~,
The problem in this case was the doctor's disapproval NOT of the procedure, ...but rather of the patient.
It's like saying I don't have a problem doing boob jobs, ...I just won't do them on Asians.
It's as discriminatory as a bank telling you I won't give you a loan to buy a house because you're a single woman.
You should instead find yourself a husband, ...then after you're married, ...they'd be happy to give you that mortgage so you can buy the house.
To quote an intelligent poster on this board:
"Your body, Your choice!" ;)
It's not the procedure it is the result of the procedure. The doctor does not believe that same sex couples should have children, therefore he does not want to be part of them getting one.
His body, his choice!!! ;D
-
Otherwise pack up and move elsewhere to form your own society where you're free to practice what you want... just like the Morons did when moving to what is now present day Utah.
Was this a Freudian slip? Justice for the Morons!! >:(
;D :-*
-
Was this a Freudian slip? Justice for the Morons!! >:(
;D :-*
{looking about innocently and coyly}
why whatever do you mean? Freudian slip... typo... Justice... salutation to Al-Gebra...? I'll let you decide. ;)
-
Did I not say, and isn't it in the rules... no political crap allowed. Especially from people who say they are against abortion on one board and then ask how they can get prostitutes on another. >:(
-
California doctors can't refuse fertility treatments to lesbians on religious grounds, court rules
The California Supreme Court decides unanimously that a state antidiscrimination law trumps the religious freedom rights of doctors.
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
11:07 AM PDT, August 18, 2008
The California Supreme Court ruled today that physicians may not refuse to provide fertility treatments to lesbians because of religious beliefs.
In a unanimous decision, the state high court said a state antidiscrimination law trumps the religious freedom rights of doctors in such cases.
If doctors do not want to help lesbians have children, they must refuse to perform the procedures for all patients, the court said.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit by a San Diego woman who contended that Christian doctors at a clinic told her they could not help her become pregnant because their religion condemned having children outside of opposite-sex marriages.
-
The doctors were discrimizing, being selective can only be done when there's a valid and objective reason to exclude someone, like denying a blind man a job as referee.
There's no evidence that gay couples make worse parents, the doctors convictions may be truthful, but that does make them intolerant (in the philosophical sense: 'tolerare' means 'to bear' 'undergo', they should bear the 'burden' of helping a gay woman get pregnant). We seem to have lost the real notion of tolerance, these days we confuse tolerance with disinterest. You can't tolerate that which doesn't bother you, but that's a side-track.
The unwillingness to treat the woman has no moral foundation, falling back on religion means that (with many religions around) people would have a lot of arbitrary motives at their disposal to refuse clients. Morality is a check of reason first, morality is religion/culture free, saying otherwise would lead to a very slippery path of subjectivism, which would ultimately mean that morality and ethics can't be advanced (which we clearly did, we abolished slavery, women got equal rights etc.).