California Top Court: Doctors Cannot Withhold Care From Gays

Another criminal attack against religion by the powers in California:

California Top Court: Doctors Cannot Withhold Care From Gays

SAN FRANCISCO — 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.

The ruling was unanimous and a succinct 18 pages, a contrast to the state Supreme Court’s 4-3 schism in May legalizing gay marriage.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling 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.”

Full Story

And the problem with doctors actually doing their job is…? They’re fertility doctors, this is what they do.

That is wonderful news! I think it is sad that doctors could choose not to help someone. That the question about whether to help homosexuals or not is sad. People are people! We are all human, and we put aside our biases and help each other.

the sad part is the replies to the story. the doctors are human beings with a conscience. from the title i thought it might apply to some life saving treatment but it doesn’t. this is a purely elective procedure. i hope those docs will stand their grounf and appeal to the supreme court. a good opening argument would be the cali supreme court disagrees with us,…that’d sure sell me.

I see no reason why same-gender preference couples should be treated any different. They are entitled to the same medical care as the rest of us.

Great news. I’m glad California is standing up for equal treatment under the law.

I see no reason why a Catholic doctor could not follow his conscience in not providing services that would go against morality. I admire any profession that does take a stand against today’s immorality. There are many other doctors that could do it and it would not bother them

As far as our sensitve Catholic doctors, pharmacist, etc…they know they will have to account for their enabling an immoral action to the Judge that only counts…

I don’t believe they have a right to refuse medical treatment. I believe they should have the right to refuse “elective” treatment if it goes against their religious belief whether they happen to be Catholic or something else.

I agree. Certainly, doctors should not be holding back non-elective medical treatments to anyone! Elective medical treatments…I don’t know.

Artificial insemination is a sin, so quite frankly, the case doesn’t interest me that much - it would be the same as a strip club owner wanting to deny entrance to lesbians the way I see it. :shrug:

Sad indeed. If you read the article, originally this Dr. referred her to a Dr. with no religious convictions that would happily serve her. And as you can see, he did and she now has 3 children. It’s quite a different scenario to refuse treatment to someone that actually needs MEDICAL ASSISTANCE. This is a controversial issue on raising children with 2 parents of the same sex. They have yet to iron out the consequences or lack of in that regard. There are some that say that children raised in such a home have many psychological issues to deal with. Why would a Dr. that thought this might well pose a detriment to the child he was helping to create, be willing to take part in it? Actually this is not discrimination at all, this is standing by his code of ethics for the good of the child that will come out of HIS procedure.

“The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association filed papers backing Benitez.”

This decision violates the liberty of conscience of the medical profession as human beings.

And the bureaucrat judges who run the courts in California like to push people around.

The court has basically thrown out the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Non-discrimination against gays trumps the right to practice your religion, at least in California.

This leads me to think seriously about the upcoming presidential election. Whatever policies you like or don’t like by the candidates, I think it’s important to consider what kind of justices they are likely to appoint to the Supreme Court. That is their lasting legacy.

Wouldn’t this be considered…oh, let’s say, UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? As I understand it, states cannot enact laws and regulations that supercede the Constitution.

Are the defendants planning to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court?

They could hopefully win on appeal. The California Courts are notoriously unpredictable and activist. Doctors should have the same right of conscientious objection for religious reasons as to the rest of Americans. A big “Boooo!” to these lesbian women for going out of the way to honor someone else’s free exercise of religion. It show once more the hypocracy of tolerance. They want others to be tolerant of their life choices but are totally intolerant of these doctor’s religious beliefs. Hypocrits!!!

In part I agree with the court, and this almost NEVER happens. IF the doctor does artificial insemination for heterosexual couples, by what rationale do they deny it to gay couples? Does the doctor also deny treatment to others solely based on sexual orientation?

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune and also the San Francisco Chronicle the defendants are considering it but haven’t made up their mind.

There’s a right to elective medical procedures? Interesting.

– Mark L. Chance.

If anyone would like to read the actual ruling, you can do so here.

That court system in California alone is reason enough for me to never want to live there.

Or visit. If I were going to the Oracle conference next month, my reservation would of been canceled.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit