|
|
ATWT Discussion Group
I beleive the answer to your topic question is in the court's ruling.
The doctors weren't forced to do anything, and they're not being forced to do anything.
==========
''The high court yesterday agreed that on remand, the doctors can avoid liability if they can prove that they refused to artificially inseminate Benitez because she was unmarried, not because she was a lesbian. But the doctors’ religious beliefs are irrelevant, because they were not forced to choose between violating those beliefs and obeying the law, Kennard said.
The defendants, she explained, ''can simply refuse to perform the IUI medical procedure at issue here for any patient of North Coast.... Or, because they incur liability under the Act if they infringe upon the right to the 'full and equal' services of North Coast’s medical practice....defendant physicians can avoid such a conflict by ensuring that every patient requiring IUI receives 'full and equal' access to that medical procedure through a North Coast physician lacking defendants’ religious objections.''
==========
What this means is that North Coast simply needs to apply the same policy to all female patients.
North Coast can either 1) not perform AI for any woman, or 2) do AI for every woman (for whom it's a viable treatment).
And if North Coast wants to continue business as usual, all they have to do is employ one physician who doesn't have a problem treating lesbians.
Now, seriously, what's so hard about that?
==========
P.S.
These are some additional facts not in the original topic post:
1) North Coast was the only ob-gyn clinic under patient's employer/employee sponsored health plan.
2) When the doctor found out patient was a lesbian, she first said she wouldn't do the AI procedure, but implied another North Coast doctor would do it. Patient agreed to this, but then, suddenly, no one at North Coast would do it.
3) Patient eventually got the prodedure done at another clinic; but it was out-of-network, and out-of-pocket expenses were in thousands of dollars.
4) Patient was instructed how to do it herself. (Insert EYEROLL.)
5) AI at other clinic was unsuccessul. Patient eventually got pregnant by in vitro (not AI).
My take:
To me, this seems like a clear violation of simple contract law. FYI - There's absolutely nothing liberal about that. It's no wonder the California Supreme Court decision was unanimous.
Something is bought and paid for per agreed upon terms. Do you honestly think the contract (health insurance policy) says: ''Artifical insemination will not be provided to lesbians.'' ?? Doubtful.
And do you think North Coast has never provided AI to an unmarried woman? Also doubtful. They'll have to prove that.
The lesson is, don't try to change conditions within or add restictions to contracts after the fact. Especially condtions and restrictions based on discrimination.
And what's so radical or liberal about enforcing equal protection under contract law? Here we have a medical corporation that's entering into business contracts and receiving money to provide health services under negotiated plans offered by state-certified health insurance carriers, who then go out and round up customers by selling them for profit to employers/employees.
If you bought something under a contract, wouldn't you want access to the services per the contract regardless of anything having to do with whether you met one of the other party's moral or religious code ... after the fact?