Doctors Should Not Be Forced To Artificially Inseminate Lesbians

by Sam Beli 18 Replies latest social current

  • Sam Beli
    Sam Beli

    ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based
    in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the right of
    physicians to refuse to perform medical procedures that violate their sincerely held religious
    convictions. The brief was filed in a case pending before the California Supreme Court,
    North Coast Women’s Care v. Benitiz.

    In that case Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian, sued two doctors who refused to artificially
    inseminate her—alleging that the doctors discriminated against her because of her
    sexual orientation in violation of California’s civil rights act. The doctors assert that
    they cannot be held liable for refusing to provide treatment based upon their sincerely
    held religious convictions because California’s constitution protects their right to the
    free exercise of religion. Benitez is represented by the LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund,
    one of the leading organizations promoting the homosexual agenda.

    According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law
    Center, “Forcing doctors to violate their conscience smacks of Nazi Germany. Doctors are
    not ‘needles for hire.’ Benitez received treatment from other doctors. Her effort to punish
    these doctors is a mean-spirited effort to exact a pound of flesh from those who refuse to
    bow to the homosexual agenda based on sincerely held religious conviction.”

    Patrick T. Gillen, the attorney who authored the brief for the Law Center, observed that the
    case has broad implications for religious liberty. He noted, “if the California Supreme Court
    accepts Bentiz’s argument, the protection that California’s constitution provides to the free
    exercise of religion will be practically meaningless. The California Supreme Court should
    hold that California’s religious liberty provision bars Benitez from holding these doctors
    liable for their refusal to provide medical care based upon their sincerely held religious convictions.”

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I always think these things are slippery slopes. Right now you have the Muslims in one of the northern States refusing to give cab rides to people who are carrying a bottle of liquor they bought at the duty free. You have other Muslims refusing to scan any pork products at the supermarket check out. You have some pharmacists who refuse to give out birth control pills or morning after pills. You have priests and other clergy hiding illegal migrants working in the country. You have women who refuse to bare their face for a drivers license photo yet demand the right to drive. All for religious reasons. sammieswife.

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee
    a lesbian, sued two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her—

    Talk about your slippery slope! (No pun intended.)

    Does this open the door for heterosexual women to sue doctors who refuse to unartifically inseminate them?

  • XJW4EVR
    XJW4EVR

    This lawsuit is all about this:

    Her effort to punish these doctors is a mean-spirited effort to exact a pound of flesh from those who refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda based on sincerely held religious conviction.

    I would not be suprised to find out that these doctors are well-known members of an conservative Evangelical Church, and are outspoken about Gays. This is nothing more than the Facist Left imposing its will on people that dare to think differently than them. Funny, that it is the Left that screams foul whenever they feel the Right is pushing its morality on them, but seems to have no prolem with doing the same. I think the term that needs to be applied to the is hypocrites.

  • LovesDubs
    LovesDubs

    Annnnddddd sooooo why would you tell the stupid doctor you are a Lesbian? Single women have the right to bear children without MEN AROUND. So why would a lesbian have different rights? Where they are inseminating a women DOESNT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT if she is a lesbian! Call Michael Jackson to hold the turkey baster for cry eye.

    Jesus...

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    I agree! No one should every be allowed to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do in regard to religion!!! If a doctor follows the teachings of anchient desert nomads that require him to impose his views of reproduction onto another person, then that is how it should be!

    As an example... a student was recently suspended from school for wearing his sacred Full Pirate Regalia, as is required by his beliefs as a Pastafarian.

    If this student does not wear his Full Pirate Regalia, as required by the Flying Speghetti Monster, he risks eternal damnation and being denied access to the Beer Volcano and the Stripper Factory in the after life!

    How DARE that school board endanger this student's eternal afterlife?

    http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

    Student punished for spaghetti beliefs
    Thursday, March 29, 2007

    touched by his noodly appendage

    The Flying Spaghetti MonsterA student has been suspended from school in America for coming to class dressed as a pirate.

    But the disciplinary action has provoked controversy – because the student says that the ban violates his rights, as the pirate costume is part of his religion.

    Bryan Killian says that he follows the Pastafarian religion, and that as a crucial part of his faith, he must wear 'full pirate regalia' as prescribed in the holy texts of Pastafarianism.

    The school, however, say that his pirate garb was disruptive.

    Pastafarians follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pictured), and believe that the world was created by the touch of his noodly appendage. Furthermore, they acknowledge pirates as being 'absolute divine beings', and stress that the worldwide decline in the number of pirates has directly led to global warming.

    Pastafarianism gained wide attention when its key prophet, Bobby Henderson, wrote to the Kansas School Board during the height of the controversy over 'Intelligent Design' being taught in science classes. His letter, also published on his website (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/), demanded equal time be given to the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as was given to ID and evolutionary theory.

    Since then, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has gained countless followers worldwide, although there are those who remain spagnostic.

    The school, in North Buncombe, North Carolina, remains adamant that their decision to suspend Killian for a day has nothing to do with his religion, and quite a lot to do with his repeated refusal to heed warnings against wearing pirate outfits.

  • rowan
    rowan

    As a physician myself, I reserve the right not to administer treatments that, to say the least, make me uncomfortable.

    for example, even though I am not totally against abortion (I believe it should be legal, so unescrupulous individuals don't get rich thanks to the black market and girls get killed due to substandard treatment) I would never perform one myself. It is not because of religious beliefs, it is simply something I am not comfortable with on a human basis. I will make sure though that the patient in question meets with another physician who can administer the treatment she needs.

    Sometimes Drs. do not feel comfortable treating a certain patient; countertransference happens daily. In these cases, I remind myself of my rule number 1 in medicine: "the patient comes first" : it is in the best interest of the patient that that Dr. does not see him/her, but another physician.

    In this case, the woman got the treatment she needed. If there had been NO OTHER professional available to perform the treatment, that would have been a breach of ethics to MHO, but treatment was readily available from another source.

    Respectfully,

    Rowan

  • Sam Beli
    Sam Beli

    Rowan, thank you for your reasoned reply.

    Sam

  • BrentR
    BrentR

    In non emergent/life threatening conditions a health care provider can refuse treatment. The doctors most likely made the mistake of stating WHY they did not want to. It appears that both side were doing some "grandstanding" and chose to make an issue out of it.

    Discretion is always the better part of valor. When an issue ends up in court it is irrelavant who wins or loses, both parties lose alot of money.

    I had a situation as a licensed massage therapist where a lady with incontinance kept pissing on my table. She never learned how to handle this problems like anyone else would. It came to the point that I flat out was not going to treat her any longer. So I advised her to that it would be best to go elswhere. The key point is to not say why, that would open the door to legal problems.

    These gentlemen had doctorate degrees and they knew the ramifications of what they did and what would happen. We all make the beds we end up sleeping in.

  • kwr
    kwr

    I would rather know my doctors position on personal issues. I think the resentment of a doctor being forced to provide medical care to someone they hate would lead to poor medical treatment. This is not like someone pumping the gas to your car and puts the patient in jeporady. The only thing this lawsuit will do is force doctors with prejudice underground and lead to problems like lost charts or tests due to resentment.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit