In California, Assisted Fertility Industry is No Place for Christian Conscience

The coercive Sodomite State of California has brought two Christian physicians to heel, at last, following a California Supreme Court decision that Christian conscience is no excuse to refuse artificial insemination to a lesbian in a domestic relationship with another lesbian. Christian physicians Douglas Fenton and Christine Brody were obligated to indulge a homosexual woman who requested to be artificially impregnated in order to produce children that she and her lesbian companion would raise without a father.

This follows the pattern that has been so fruitful for coercive Sodomites: first seek tolerance, as objects of pity, then demand validation and approval and, finally, coerce active collaboration and punish any who decline to cooperate. Tolerance is just a transitional phase en route to the Sodomites' imposition of their will on every person they encounter.

Lesbian's suit over procedure is settled
By Greg Moran, Union-Tribune Staff Writer

A long-running lawsuit between an Oceanside lesbian couple and two doctors that pitted the civil rights of same-sex couples against religious freedom for physicians has been settled.

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. It ends a lawsuit filed in 2001 by Guadalupe Benitez against Drs. Douglas Fenton and Christine Brody at North Coast Womens Care in Vista.

Benitez alleged that the doctors told her they would not inseminate her because their religious convictions — they are Christians — prohibited them from doing the procedure for a lesbian couple.

Benitez went to another doctor, got pregnant and had a child with her partner, Joanne Clark. The boy is now 7. The couple also have 4-year-old twins.
But she sued the doctors and clinic, arguing that the state's civil rights laws do not allow doctors to discriminate against patients based on their religious beliefs.

A state appeals court in San Diego ruled in 2006 in favor of the doctors. But in August 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Benitez, saying that religious-liberty claims cannot excuse illegal discrimination.

Both the doctors and the couple released a joint statement in which the doctors said they were sorry that Benitez and Clark felt they were being treated differently because of their sexual orientation.

The doctors said they want “all of their patients, including those who are lesbian and gay, to feel welcome and accepted in their medical practice, and are committed to treating all of their patients with equal dignity and respect in the context of the highest quality of medical care.”

The doctors contended as the case went on that they declined to do the procedure because Benitez was unmarried — not because of her sexual orientation. But there was also evidence in the case early on that the doctors had acknowledged that they did not inseminate her because she is a lesbian.

Benitez said yesterday that she is pleased that the case is over. “It was a really hard thing to go through, but it was worth it because we have hopefully paved the way for other people, and made sure that this is not going to happen to someone else,” she said.

The lawyer for the doctors could not be reached for comment yesterday. Throughout the litigation, the physicians have declined to comment publicly on the case.
The state's civil rights law prohibits discrimination in businesses that cater to the public. The law does allow doctors to opt out of some kinds of medical procedures, such as abortion.

But if a physician does offer to do certain procedures, they must be made available to all, said Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal, an advocacy group for same-sex rights.
While the exact amount of the settlement is private, Pizer said it was enough so that the couple's children “will be able to have whatever type of education they want to have in the future.” The doctors did not admit any wrongdoing, she said.

Union-Tribune
Greg Moran: (619) 542-4586;

Pro-life Victory at Indian Supreme Court: Mentally Retarded Rape Victim Has Right to Refuse Abortion

Regent University law professor Scott Pryor posted on his blog Pryor Thoughts today about an Indian Supreme Court judgment barring a compulsory abortion against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year-old woman. Pryor recently returned from India where he taught law under a Fulbright Scholarship.

A Mother's Rights Vindicated

On 4 September I posted about the Indian Supreme Court judgment barring the abortion of the unborn child against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year old: http://pryorthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/buck-v-bell-india-style.html. I have since read the court’s opinion and corresponded with Bedi Tanu, the appellant's advocate who has practiced law for only six years.

Along with her senior advocate, she argued the case to the High Court in Chandigarh but lost. Nevertheless, through the efforts of friends and colleagues in Delhi, an appeal was delivered to the home of the Chief Justice of India at 9:00 pm on Friday night, only hours before the abortion was scheduled to take place the next morning.

Ms. Tanu argued the case on Monday after which a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a short written order indicating its decision in favor of life, which was followed by the lengthy written judgment the last month.

I can’t summarize the meaning of this case any better than in the words Bedi wrote to me:

Every life is very precious. We have to see the world of others from their eyes and not our eyes. This girl has her world. We are doing nothing for her. We have no right to interfere in her world. Her rape was and is a heinous offence. The offender is the rapist; the child is innocent. If the mother wants her child for any reason, we can’t question her motherhood instinct on the parameter of IQ analysis. The disabled may not express their desires so easily (though this girl expressed her's unequivocally) but that does not mean they have no wishes. Disability is more in our perception, in our bias, than in the world. Life for the disabled is difficult and now, when the law is recognizing their rights, we cannot allow our prejudice, our ignorance, our stereotyped approach, to come in the way of life of self-determination of the mentally disabled.

http://pryorthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-rights-vindicated.html#comment-form