US lesbian wins fertility battle

Professur

Well-Known Member
Ms Benitez said it was 'painful' to be denied her right to be a mother

California's highest court has ruled that doctors in the US state cannot discriminate against gay patients on the basis of religious belief.

The decision was made after two Christian doctors refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian undergoing fertility treatment.

The doctors said that would have gone against their beliefs and instead told the patient how to inseminate herself.

Guadalupe Benitez, 36, changed doctors and has since had three children.

She sued the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in 2001, arguing that doctors were subject to law banning businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It was an awful thing to go through," Ms Benitez was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

'Unlawful discrimination'

"It was very painful - the fact that you have someone telling you they will not help you because of who you are, that they will deny your right to be a mother and have a family," she said.

The ruling by California's Supreme Court said that although religious liberty was protected by the constitution, this was not an excuse for unlawful discrimination against others.

Neither of the two doctors had could be exempted from the state's law on either freedom of speech or religious grounds, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in her judgement.

Ms Benitez's lawyer, Jennifier Pizer, said it was a "victory for public health", adding that the ruling should have influence throughout the US.

But one of the lawyers for the clinic, in the city of Vista, California, said the ruling advanced the state Supreme Court's "radical agenda".

"The Supreme Court's desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about," Robert Tyler, head of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, told the Associated Press news agency.

If you ever wondered who's rights are more important .. now you know.

Source
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
The Docs rights end exactly where the patient's begins and vice-versa. They signed up to be fertility doctors, not priests. Their job is to impregnate women..period. Not to judge which woman they want to or don't want to impregnate.

I'd get the same feeling if a Doctor refused to impregnate a black woman, or a Jewish woman, or a blind woman...regardless fo what moral code they decided applied at the time.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
kinda interesting when you think about where all the "pro-life" stuff comes from - religiously cloaked for the sheeple but actually intended to make sure the sheeple reproduce themselves as an economically vulnerable labor force.

so while they think they are acting n a religiously proper way, these docs are actually, unknowingly denying the underlying mechanism of their belief.

hey, lesbian babies can work in the mills, too.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
"The Supreme Court's desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about," Robert Tyler, head of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, told the Associated Press news agency.
I wonder what Tyler's statement would've been if Muslim or Jewish doctors refused to treat women because of their religious beliefs. :shrug:

Certainly not "Oh..that's alright then."
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
it was 'painful' to be denied her right to be a mother

The only one denying this woman the "right" is herself & her choices.

Lesbians don't have sperm. Sorry.

Next.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Or they are standing up for their rights.


Sorry. I don't buy that in the least. Used to be a slogan "We reserve the right to refuse service to (insert item here)". The trouble with this idea started with "Seperate but equal". I won't go into any detail on my view of that, but nobody, and I mean nobody has a right to a child. You can jump on that bandwagon if you like, and post any kind of 'statistic' you desire, but thats the bottom line. If you want a child, then either adopt, or get fucked like every other producing human being on the planet. This lawsuit is :bs:
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
Used to be a slogan "We reserve the right to refuse service to (insert item here)".

They also used to have white and colored fountains.

California's highest court has ruled that doctors in the US state cannot discriminate against gay patients on the basis of religious belief.

They are free to discriminate all they want in their private lives, if they want to, they are free to protest with phelps and the gang



The doctors said that would have gone against their beliefs and instead told the patient how to inseminate herself.

Isn't that like go fuck yourself???

Guadalupe Benitez, 36, changed doctors and has since had three children.

I guess she found a good jewish doctor.

(why anyone would see a goy doctor is beyond me..JOKING)
 

2minkey

bootlicker
Or they are standing up for their rights.

or they should just stop being a fucking drama queen and get a doctor who isn't impaired by superstition?

there's no real harm to this lady when she can simply walk across the street to another physician.
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
or they should just stop being a fucking drama queen and get a doctor who isn't impaired by superstition?

there's no real harm to this lady when she can simply walk across the street to another physician.

They did go to another doctor, but they shouldn't have had too. It's dircrimination to refuse service on account of gender race or sexual orientation.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
or they should just stop being a fucking drama queen and get a doctor who isn't impaired by superstition?

I always ask a new doctor how they feel about evolution.

Edit: Interestingly, I have not yet received an incorrect answer.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
They did go to another doctor, but they shouldn't have had too. It's dircrimination to refuse service on account of gender race or sexual orientation.

really? i didn't realize she was being forced to ride on the back of the bus - any bus - or use a special drinking fountain. well, better call out the national guard.

this lady had no difficulty finding exactly the quasimedical service she wanted. no difficulty whatsoever.

should the right of her ugly ass to have a kid steamroll the right of doctor yumyum to object to a very specific procedure that he finds objectionably on a religious basis, particularly when there a re a gazillion easily obtainable alternatives for her? oh did we mention that this isn't REALLY interfereing at all with her ability to procure a kid unit? hmmm... difficult choices, indeed.

underlying all of this there must be a doctrine of reasonability, unless we're really hoping to launch a new and exciting bullshit orthodoxy. yay for kneejerk!
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
really? i didn't realize she was being forced to ride on the back of the bus - any bus - or use a special drinking fountain. well, better call out the national guard.

this lady had no difficulty finding exactly the quasimedical service she wanted. no difficulty whatsoever.

should the right of her ugly ass to have a kid steamroll the right of doctor yumyum to object to a very specific procedure that he finds objectionably on a religious basis, particularly when there a re a gazillion easily obtainable alternatives for her? oh did we mention that this isn't REALLY interfereing at all with her ability to procure a kid unit? hmmm... difficult choices, indeed.

underlying all of this there must be a doctrine of reasonability, unless we're really hoping to launch a new and exciting bullshit orthodoxy. yay for kneejerk!

you sound like the guys way back when saying "well, i don't get it, what is wrong with the back of the bus?"
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
t'wasn't the procedure the quack had an issue with..it was the person requesting said procedure. - therein lies the rub.

Like a store that sells sex aids to everyone BUT not to homosexuals. :shrug:
 

2minkey

bootlicker
you sound like the guys way back when saying "well, i don't get it, what is wrong with the back of the bus?"

sorry, dude, you're the one pushing your own orthodoxy on everyone else here. if anyone's wearing an armband...

t'wasn't the procedure the quack had an issue with..it was the person requesting said procedure. - therein lies the rub.

Like a store that sells sex aids to everyone BUT not to homosexuals. :shrug:

and, again, she had plenty of alternatives.

if she was truly put in a position where she had to go to unusual lengths to procure the same service of level of service as the "normals" or entirely unable to secure the same, then there would be an issue. there isn't.

maybe next we can force religious christians to perform abortions, when a free koat hangar klinik is right across the street, just to show those fuckers who is boss, eh?
 

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
sorry, dude, you're the one pushing your own orthodoxy on everyone else here. if anyone's wearing an armband...

Actually you are the one saying a Dr. can refuse to treat a patient because of their personal beleifs.

Which in thins case is against the law, and the hippocratic oath.
 
Top