I agree but wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:46 AM:I must insist that the courts be there with the Doctor in treating people with AIDS or the possibilty of AIDS. This way they both can practice religion in praying they neither come down with the disease in treating the gays.

I wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:47 AM:Discrimination hurts everybody.

to I wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:04 AM:That's laughable. You, yourself, discriminate every day. It's called choice and everyone should have one... not only those on the fringes.

Big Brother does have a down side as well.

Huh wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:05 AM:I agree but... what is your point? Doctors should treat infectious disease? Aids is a "gay disease?" By your demented logic what about treating other infectious disease? If you have a point it may help to clarify. If you are just a bigoted, ignorant, and full of hatred, point taken.

alfredo wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:16 AM:This ruling should be sufficient to prevent pharmacists from refusing prescribe birth control medication and/or devices based on religion also?? Or, have them go into some other line of work.

think wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:24 AM:This is about a young lady who is and always has been confounded by her sexual identity as well as her own religious beliefs going back to her childhood. God will judge, not us. She needs our sincere prayers as do the physicians who were trying to do an upright thing in their eyes and beliefs.The young lady received multiple children soon after this and was referred to another provider at no loss to herself, no damages. However, she decided to take her lifestyle and attempt to destroy those with faith in a living God whom she hates.

Pray these doctors dont move out of state... wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:35 AM:These doctors and others are going to move out of state when they're discriminated like this. Then we'll all have to have doctors shipped in from who knows where. Or outsourced doctors via computer...way to go California make it harder for people to do business in the state.

This is the WRONG decision by the California Supreme Court. The whole story is that these doctors recommended another doctor who would perform the VOLUNTARY PROCEDURE. Then this patient came back to sue. This was Not a mandatory life or death situation with a patient in an emergency room for instance. The Court is ALL wrong, the anti-discrimination law does not apply. I hope the doctors go ALL the way to the US Supreme Court to fight it.

Cardiffian wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:53 AM:This was a no brainer. Once again, our republican court made the right call - and no, I am not being facetious. This is a good thing.

To Huh wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:35 PM:Did anyone mention bigots? No what I said as long as the judges are so lenient with their ruling, then why not have the judges and lawyers volunteer to help patients with AIDS. Now would they do it? NEVER, that my friend is bigots!

Fernando wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:41 PM:Next, religious organizations will be forced to accept the homosexual lifestyle, or face criminal charges.

Cardiffian wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:45 PM:To "think" - how presumptous and arrogant to think that this young lady, or anyone else for that matter "needs" your prayers! Please, keep your prayers to yourself. However we do agree on something. She did decide to take her lifestyle and attempt to destroy an injustice and to expose a sin - the sin of pride.

to Cardiffian wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:47 PM:This is good if you like a nanny state. Most of us can think for ourselves.

GREAT wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:53 PM:Doctors, religions, and whoever else wants to discriminate SHOULD be forced if they don't do what's right. No discrimination in CA! If you want to discriminate against people; move somewhere other than California. Treat all people, races, legal status, etc the SAME.

to GREAT wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:12 PM:Funny. You discriminate every day. Your very post discriminates.

Nice all kettle.

Good decision... wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:23 PM:doctors are licensed by the state and should be held to the same rules concerning discrimination and prejudice. IMHO I also think that pharmacists should be held accountable as well. Your religious views are YOUR OWN...if you hold some views that make it unlikely you will be able to treat sick people...THEN GET OUT OF MEDICINE! Be a clergyperson

Jamie wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:45 PM:Seems to me that no doctor should be force to perform a ELECTIVE procedure that is against his/her beliefs. Providing a referal to a physician that offers those procedures should be enough. Medically necessary procedures is another thing all together. Are we going to sue the physicians that refuse to do a breast augmentation on a 15 year old for age discrimination? Doctors are faced daily with ethical decisions in the treatment of their patients, it is a disservice to both the patient and the public to force them to abandon their moral beliefs, simply find a physician that is willing to do the procedure.

Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:47 PM:(to Cardiffian
[-] wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:47 PM:This is good if you like a nanny state....)
Isn't that what these "Christians" want? Except their nanny is some rich, white guy's interpretation of the bible?

to Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:59 PM:This was an elective procedure! Get a clue already!

bogie wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:13 PM:Vista Watchcat, I need a further explaination. What do you mean by "Except their nanny is some rich, white guy's interpretation of the bible?". I don't get it. If you are trying to confuse you succeeded

Court rules wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:18 PM:Doctors can't refuse service to pregant nine year old girls who haven't notifed their parents.

Huh wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:29 PM:To I agree but, Your rebuttal reinforces my point of your ignorance. I would never expect a bigot to state that upfront. Your silly comment makes bigotted assumptions about AIDS. If you disagree with the decision make a valid argument.

Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:33 PM:Cons always claim "nanny state" whenever the law tries to protect those who are different. They claim that the "nanny state" keeps trying to tell us how we have to live. Isn't that exactly what some rich, white guys interpretation of the bible does? Telling us how we should live.

I dont understand wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:50 PM:why can people cry for their rights on certain issues, but then deny the doctor his rights on this one?

So much wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:13 PM:for owning your own business and the Constitution. Our forefathers have to be rolling in their graves.

to Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:18 PM:This is becoming a nanny state, whether you want to admit it or not. People have a right to their viewpoints. Obviously the gays don't think that's fair.

bogie wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:25 PM:I get it now Vista Watchcat. You have some kind of phobia of "rich white guys". You would never discriminate against a "rich white guy" because of your phobia would you? You aren't trying to tell us that conservatives are "rich white guys" are you?

To court rules wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:31 PM:Prenatal care is a necessary medical treatment, artificial insemination is NOT medically necessary. No one is sick, no ones life is in danger, no one faces medical complications if the procedure is not done. I actually belive that they have the right to be artificially inseminated, but by a doctor that is willing to do that, not by foring a doctor who is not willing to violate their personal ethics by doing so. They gave her a doctor that would do the procedure, so whats the problem. These doctors do not work for the government and should therefore retain their right not to perform a treatment against their moral beliefs unless such denial would place the patients health at risk.

Were playing God wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:58 PM:We have been for too long and now it's coming back on us all. We have no business artificially inseminating anyone. If you should be pregnant, you would get pregnant. This goes for both heterosexual and homosexual people.

Gay marriage wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:00 PM:I support the doctors' refusal to inseminate unmarried women because kids do need two parents. Fortunately, this woman's relationship with another woman can now be considered a marriage. I think the doctors are nuts if they refuse to inseminate a married lesbian woman, but that should be their right. At least 90 percent of the doctors out there are probably happy to do this, so why waste your time with a lawsuit?

Cardiffian wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:02 PM:Before you frame a rebuttal to this court case, you should probably read it first. You will find that the issue was whether or not the federal or california constitution could be used to provide a medical practioner with an exemption from the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court found that that did not. Basically, both constitution's protections for the free excercise of religion can not be a reason to not conform to the Civil Rights act. It puts the medical office in the same position as a restaurant, a retail store or a building contractor. The type of "procedure" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the medical facility is a business that must conform to the civil rights statute. You can find the decision anywhere on the internet. Maybe NCT will post a link?

So wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:04 PM:Does this decision mean that stores can no longer "refuse service to anyone"? The government does not have the power to tell private business (in this case the doctors) who they can and can't do business with. They are a private business - not a public venture. What is next - will a bar get sued because they refuse to serve alcohol to a drunk person who has the "disease" of alcoholism? Dumb decision by the Supreme Court that will lead to way too many unintended consequences.

THE ONE wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:35 PM:with all this talk about bigots did anyone mention smallots?

Alf wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:06 PM:Well, "Jamie" at 1:45PM,
Mrs. Alf, a pediatrician, and I were saying the same thing this morning.
That is, that doctors have a responsibility to perform medically necessary procedures, but should always be able to decide, for whatever reason, whether or not to perform elective procedures as they see fit.
Regards, Alf.

strange timing wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:17 PM:If this issue is important to you either way, then vote regarding Proposition 8!

Dr. Discriminate wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:32 PM:What happened to American individual freedom and liberty? If a doctor has a personal religous belief against gays it should be his/her personal right to refuse service. If an American was born or chose to be gay it should be his/her personal right to do so. Having government force ideals on individual freedom is contrary to the core beliefs that this country was founded upon. Looks like there is a market of artifically inseminated gay people that a doctor or doctors should and probably will capitalize upon. Keep government out of our homes, churches, businesses, clubs, unions, etc.

Bill wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:44 PM:How is having a choice discriminating?

And please, if your answer will make my IQ go down, then don't!

Stella wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:47 PM:I don't think this is enforceable because if it is a private conversation between two people with no recording devices, wires, email, or phones and such, the doctor can simply say no, and it would be one person's word against the other. It is, after all, one person's wishes versus another, with the liberals running the courts in CA coming down on the side of, who else, homosexuals.

Goodbye doc wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:07 PM:This ruling will give doctors another reason to leave California. As if all the anti-business laws weren't enough.

Bad Court Ruling wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:32 PM:I feel I need to start by saying that I support gay marriage and virtually any other legislation that will ensure every individual is taken on their own merit and not denied participation in any government sponsored whatever based on anything other than their status as a legal, law abiding & tax paying citizen.

That said, I completely thing the State Supreme Court was wrong on this one. We are not talking about life & death. This was not a life saving procedure. This was not an emergency. The doctor in question even went so far as to refer the patient to another licensed doctor willing to do the elective procedure that was ultimately done and resulted in the beautiful children her and her significant other have now.

I believe her lawsuit had nothing to do with anything more than wanting to make and point and force beliefs.

No doctor should ever be able to refuse to perform any emergency or life saving procedure because they have moral objections. Period. However, every doctor (as a business owner) should be able to refuse any elective procedure they choose. I think this woman should be happy the doctor was honest with her and referred her to another doctor who didn't hold the same objection. Honestly ... where does she think she got (or would have gotten) the better overall care?

Simple really wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:01 PM:All the court said was if you offer a procedure to some offer it to all, or don't offer it at all. Fair and simple

Mary wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:45 PM:My vote is to ban artificial insemination for everyone - gay or straight. As long as there are children in foster care and orphanages, there is no need for this procedure for anyone. Both gays and straights should be allowed to adobt as long as they are financially and emotional sound.

The liberals running the courts wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:45 PM:Funny comment! 'The liberals running the courts!' I love it! I thought five or six of the seven CSC judges were Republican appointees. This is a typical and stupid criticism that yahoos make every time they don't like a court decision. And it seems like the yahoos don't usually take the time to read the relevant laws that the courts base their decisions on.

Virilene wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:53 PM:The doctors were the ones who were trying to impose their moral beliefs on the patients. What's more, they were foolish enough to make this known. They could have declined to perform the procedure and said that they were doing so because they believed it would pose a threat to the woman's health. She would have found another doctor to perform the procedure (as she ended up doing), end of story. Instead, the doctors made it known that they were refusing to perform the procedure because of their religiously-based objections to the woman's lifestyle, showing themselves to be both bigots and fools. They should not be licensed to practice medicine in the civilized world.

Should a doctor be allowed to deny non-urgent care to a patient because the patient was of a different religion? Because the patient was of a different race? Even in this day and age there are people who deny the morality of people of other faiths, or object to the mixing of races. This case is clearly along that continuum.

If a physician can't separate his moral beliefs from the exercise of his profession, he (or she) should instead become a religious leader, where the bigotry would be constitutionally protected, and leave the practice of medicine to professionals.

TrueRepublican wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:55 PM:The Court ruled doctors can't use religious beliefs to refuse service to anyone - not just gays. The NC Times chose to put Gays in the headline so it would get a rise (apparently it worked). I'm glad to see educated, caring individuals and couples bringing children into the world. Statistics show they'll raise them to be educated, productive members of society. That's a lot more than can be said about a lot of the so-called "traditional" parents. I don't understand why y'all are so afraid. Get over yourselves. As a Catholic, I refuse to use my God or my beliefs as an excuse for hating others.

Jack wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:01 PM:Which professionals get to exercise this perogative? Do dentists get to refuse dental procedures to gay patients? To Christian patients? To divorced patients? To unmarried patients? Do teachers get to refuse to teach gay students? Do judges get to refuse to hear a court case involving gay plaintiffs based on moral objections?

Pretty much the only "professionals" who have a constitutional right to practice bigotry are religious leaders. We really should update that Constitution.

OMG wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:40 PM:I'm always shocked and saddened to be reminded of the ever-present, judgmental religious right in North County, especially in situations like this. It's pretty obvious that the reason for not inseminating this woman had to do with her sexual orientation, and yet these doctors claim it is because she's single? How lame can you get?!

How many outstanding single moms, and for that matter, dads, are there out there? Of course it's best if there are 2 loving parents in a home (regardless of gender or orientation), but the reality is that there's always a good chance children will be raised in a single parent home. I was raised by a single parent in the 1950s and 1960s, and you cannot believe the stereotypes and stigma I was subjected to by small-minded people. I am thankful that my husband and I have been lucky enough and strong enough to stay together to raise our children, but I don't think I'm a better parent because I'm married to someone of the opposite gender.

Wasn't the message of Jesus NOT to judge? I think it's shameful how his message has been taken out of context and bastardized to justify the judgmental attitudes of so-called Christians.

Brave to the court for this decision.

Rich white doctor wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:50 PM:So, the fad du jour is to sue to get your own choice, while denying the doc's their own choice...

Vern wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:08 AM:Children are not supposed to be created in a labratory. God created a perfect method for achieving the goal of a couple having children. A woman who doesn't choose to marry a compatable man and raise children as well as a man who doesn't choose to marry a compatable woman and raise children should not have children. If they prefer to spend their life being intimate with someone of the same gender, they have made their choice. Leave child rearing to people who understand the process...

Lady wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:18 AM:This ruling is TO much. Just like the gays,Dr has his rights too. PERIOD!! GO somewhere else GET over IT!! Just like they did. The others on here are so right. Doctors are going to start leaving this state.I would IF I was a Dr,this state is in BIG enough trouble already!! Voting NO on 8 MY right!!

Infidel wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:51 AM:We have passed the Roman Empire. What next I pray this case goes to the US Supreme Court.

Be prepared to pay for higher medical cost to cover insurance "choice rights."

sd wrote on Aug 19, 2008 6:50 AM:Why can't the woman go to hunderds of other doctors who will do anything for money? oh that's right, lets sue and embarrass the 2 doctors first and then go to someone else with all the money won on the court case. ...

John wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:04 AM:This is tough. If the doctors reasons really WERE marital status, then they should be clear about that up front with all their patients. This reeks to me more of making money off of the woman for 11 months and then conveniently changing their mind. If they didn't like her marital status, why did they treat her at all??? I'd like to know if the clinic has treated straight unmarried women in the past or since.

What if the doctors were Muslim? Would the ruling still be the same?

As for the plaintiff...this was not a health matter where she had a disease or something. The doctors would have had to treat that. She should have just gone to the other clinic and not made a stink. This did not do the gay community any favors.

By the way...I'm a gay man. She should be able to have a child...but this got out of hand.

logfish wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:37 AM:Zombies are gonna get you all!!

No harm wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:46 AM:Gay activists claim that their agenda does not harm others. Yet here, their agenda is punishing others. What insanity will come from the rights of gays to marry? Vote yes on the ban on the ban of gay marriage and elect McCain to appoint non activist judges.

Grump wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:49 AM:If you are gay and you want kids, adopt one. No matter what some courts says, a doctor who does not want to perform a procedure (not a treatment) will not do it.

Dirty Sanchez wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:51 AM:I support lesbians.

Ken wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:56 AM:Sooo...Docs have to care for happy patients as well as sad ones, eh? That's no big deal, unless the NCTimes is misusing the term "gay" instead of using the proper term HOMOSEXUAL. Gay means a kind of happiness. HOMOSEXUAL means HOMOSEXUAL, so use the correct term, please.

Private doctors wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:07 AM:should have the right to refuse treatment to anyone, just like bars and restaurants have the right to refuse business to ANYONE. This was not and ER doctor, or a life threatening issue. If it was that would be a different case. ... The state of CA should NOT be telling me who I can or can not treat. I guess that would mean I would have to Mandatory take medical???? Come on people our rights are being taken away from us, piece by piece.

Court ruled too wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:18 AM:Finally, my previous post, in conjunction with the court ruling on doctors' personal convictions show that they (the courts) are only allowing the humanist/secular rules to apply to all.

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:25 AM:Doctors in our great state should not discriminate in providing services anymore than lawyers,police,bus drivers,or dentists.

However, some so called religous people will discriminate regardless of the law. I would think that if a doctor even hints at a bias or bigoted point of view the person should run away from the office.

To those who pretend that being religous means being bigoted against gay citizens, we feel sorry for your remarkable lack of ability to recognize irony in yourself.

The court is right, the doctors who did the bigoted acts were wrong. Nothing will change with the ruling and eventually these outdated and harmful views about gay citizens will fade into the past. It will take many generations.

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:34 AM:To: Ken

American Heritage Dictionary citation -

Gay - Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.


American Heritage Dictionary citation -

Ignorant - Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.

Ken - seems you are ignorant of the use of the term "gay" in the English language ...

Hetro wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:39 AM:I'm not gay, and I do not support gay marriage. I think it is wrong for two gays or lesbians to raise children... I do not want the gay lifestyle forced down my throat. Get it?

Poppy wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:03 AM:I thought for sure that when someone chooses to follow the medical profession they take their vow to help all humanity. I didn't realize their vows meant to help all the humanity they agree with and to refuse those they don't agree with. Shameful.

Brodys patient wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:29 AM:I chose Dr. Brody because she was highly recommended and I have no regrets. When you meet her, you see that she in no way is judgmental. She has her beliefs and as stated before, she gave the patient an alternative. She is a good person, and a wonderful doctor.

Last Stand wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:30 AM:When decent people are punished by law for following their conscience, how long will it be before society descends into chaos?

If individual conscience is removed from the public sphere what will take its place? Ethics training? Government regulation?

The peace and prosperity we have enjoyed for so long in this country is not the norm globally or historically. It can be lost.

There is no shortage of third world cesspools to prove the point.

There will always be heroes who will do the right thing no matter the punishment. There will always be villains who will do the wrong thing no matter the consequence. But most people are somewhere in between, and when they are threatened with punishment for doing the right thing, they may just fail to do it. When that huge number of people in the middle all stop doing the right thing, then your civilization collapses.

This one ruling won't have that effect by itself, but if the steady drumbeat of such rulings continues for much longer, we may reach the point of no return much sooner than anyone expects.

Hetero wrote on Aug 19, 2008 9:56 AM:If we can't force "the gay lifestyle" down your throat, can we at least force you to learn correct English spelling?

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:02 AM:To hetro:

Sorry, I don't get it. Who do you really think you are suggesting that "do not want the gay lifestyle forced down my throat". You live in a world with people who have different lifestyles than you. Some gay lifestyle folks might even wish that people with your point of view should just go away and stop trying to cram their point of view down their throats. So, see, you simply need to accept that some folks differ from you and if you don't like it, tough, just act like an adult and treat others with respect and as an equal. Many would share my point of view and would hope that your parents somehow would have raised a more tolerant and understanding person. But alas, it seems they did not or the lessons bounced off your skull never having a chance to penetrate into your brain. Really, can't you just live and let live and be more decent about life?

Christine wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:14 AM:Couldn't they find a non-Christian to do this instead of being court happy and involving the world in personal choices? That is what becomes "shameful."

Freedom dying wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:22 AM:This is not about gay rights. This is about freedom of religion. It will take the Supreme Court to reaffirm the basic rights of these fine doctors. Note: "even if compliance poses an 'incidental conflict' with a doctor's religious beliefs." The level of arrogance here is breathtaking. Vote YES on Prop 8. Vote McCain for non-activist justice appointments.

Civil Rights wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:45 AM:In reading the majority of these posts it is clear to me why the gay community likens their struggle for equality to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. What people are saying is that professionals and businesses should have the right to deny service to anyone they don't like, or don't agree with. Sound familiar?? And people think discrimination is limited to the South.

To Hetro - how, in any way, is this being "forced down your throat?" I think it's interesting that good, non-judging Christians feel that the "gay agenda" is being forced down their throats. How? Because they're simply asking for the same rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution - the "Law of the Land?" Do you realize that if this country was to add an amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman it would be the first amendment that takes AWAY a right?

Oh, and BTW, I'm straight and have been happily married for nearly 25 years.

Because wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:54 AM:Because it's their choice to force upon you....... What side am I speaking of, isn't that irrelevant?

gay is the new black wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:17 AM:what if these doctors were practicing 30 years ago and their personal preference was to only treat white people? what if that same standard was used today?? They would be run out of business for being bigots and racists. What happened to all people are created equal? What about separation of church and state? Doctors get in the profession to help everyone not just who they share similar beliefs with. Everyone should be entitled to the same care regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation. We are all Americans and all human beings so let's treat each other with the respect we all deserve.

To Hetero wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:27 AM:In what way does their choice affect you? Selfish and shameful to be so nasty.

And to Christine? This doctor is so lovely that she only treats people whom she agrees with? Thank goodness she is not my doctor. Her medical vow is a sham. She should have gotten into a professional that she can treat everybody equally and not just who follows the same path she does. As I say, shameful! But, it is to each of us to examine ourselves and our own motives. What are yours? Jesus didn't hate the gays, you know. He sayd we should all love each other. Where did you fall off the track?

Separation wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:29 AM:One's personal religion has no place in the workplace, so sorry.

Christian Doctor wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:30 AM:Does Dr. Brody list herself as a Christian Doctor? Serving Christians only? That would make more sense.

this stinks wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:38 AM:Doctors are going to be afraid to speak to a patient when it's really necessary because of lawsuit. She could've gone elsewhere. Why do we have to "walk on cut glass" around gays and lesbians.

CA is paradise. wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:39 AM:It's amazing there is even a house available for sale in this great state. No smoking or drinking on the beach, hands-free, forced water reduction, no trans-fat, religious & medical persecution, "immigrant" rights, no budget, overcrowded freeways, highest paid teachers with next to lowest results, global climate change agenda, same sex marriage, no egg-industry, no oil drilling; California is an absolute freedom-filled paradise!

To separation wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:40 AM:One's personal religion goes with them wherever they go. The state of CA is trampling on the religious freedom of these doctors. We can only hope that the Supreme Court sets them straight.

In the closet wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:08 PM:It seems too many people who have such a passion against homosexuals are usually hiding something themselves. Remember Jeffrey Dahmer?

Skippy wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:09 PM:Lesbian Benitez was referred to another fertility clinic and she got what she wanted. But that wasn't good enough, she HAD to punish the Christians for being true to their faith. Gays, liberals and so-called "progressives" are completely out of control. they seek to shove the Christians into the closet they just let all the gays out of. The doctors should sue her in Federal court for violating the First Amendment.

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:10 PM:to last Stand: You state - When decent people are punished by law for following their conscience, how long will it be before society descends into chaos?

Yeah, whatever. You could make the same argument for people who fought to maintain slavery, or kill jews in death camps, or lynched black men for being with white women, or moved the American Indian from their homes by force. All of these evil acts were defended by "decent people doing what their conscience demands."

This is why the California Supreme Court is necessary, namely to keep the nuttier ones such as yourself from treading all over another citizens civil rights through self declared acts of conscience. An no, you can not discriminate because your religion says you can, at least not in our state. The ruling was clear, minor religous impositions placed on an individual trump trashing the publics rights in general.If this tears at your heart strings, well, so much the better and perhaps you can work through using religion to promote bigotry and prejudice.

All or none wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:12 PM:The court ruling is simple. Either you provide service to all or none. The doctors will be like insurance companies in California, not providing certain services at all. Isn't this what communism is, one choice, take it or leave it? Then we will truly be equal….

I agree with all who are stating our freedoms are being taken away one by one, like the boiling frog.... When do the thought police become a reality?

The kind of doctor I want wrote on Aug 19, 2008 12:34 PM:Virilene says, "They could have declined to perform the procedure and said that they were doing so because they believed it would pose a threat to the woman's health."

So you're saying they should have lied to the patient and everything would have been okay. Riiiight. That's the kind of doctor I want.

"They should not be licensed to practice medicine in the civilized world." Because civilized doctors lie to their patients and do things that go against their moral and ethical judgement. Riiiight. That's the kind of doctor I want.

Let's just forget about the skill level of the doctor and allow any hack to be an ob/gyn physician as long as they promise to perform abortions and artificially inseminate every woman who walks through the door requesting it. Riiiight. That's the kind of doctor I want.

Puzzling wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:00 PM:I guess what I find hard to understand is why Christians hate anyone who is not like them? I know for sure that is not what Jesus had in mind.

The Truth wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:03 PM:The truth of the matter is that the doctors did not prevent the woman from getting the medical treatment she wanted. She was referred to an excellent physician and now has 3 beautiful children. She got what she wanted, but is she satisfied. No, she still wants to punish the first physician and allow others to force their own personal choice onto physicians. This is what is meant by "cramming your lifestyle down others throats".

And anyone comparing this situation to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s does an IMMEASURABLE injustice to the hardship many unfortunate people endured during that time.

Patriot wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:20 PM:I'm with Grump. She should have adopted. In this increasingly crowded world, there are lots of kids out there needing parents. With the adoption tax credit, she could have saved herself and everyone else a lot of time, expense, and drama, while providing a home for a needy child.

Bill wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:51 PM:This is a very complicated issue.

Those who think its discriminating would argue that its very simple. The other side would argue that it is simple also but for different reasons. This sets up a clash between a gay persons right to be treated vs. the doctors right to avoid a situtation that poses a possible health risk. As long as gays have an astronomically higher AIDS rate than heteros, that is what this does. So what this means is that every patient will be tested for AIDS and if a gay person has AIDS, they can be denied. The same would apply for a straight person. No court can force a doctor to work on a patient that poses a health risk to the doctor and it takes the discrimation argument out of the equation. The court said they could not discriminate based on religious beliefs but said nothing about health hazards. I supported gay marraige because it doesnt effect anyone else despite what some people say. You have no right to be free of things you define as offensive in America. Not at the expense of anothers free speech rights. However, this does effect someone else but only if a health hazard is present. Absent evidence of that, doctors should be compelled to perform or all they are doing is perverting the meaning of freedom of religion.

This is a good decision that left open other remedies that doctors can use to protect themselves.

I know of no binding case law that grants anyone the right to use religious beliefs this way.

But how is this decision forcing the gay lifestyle down anyones throat?

Huh?

JD wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:56 PM:This was a voluntary procedure, yes. HOWEVER, the issue here is that the doctors refused to provide this service to certain people. THAT is the discrimination. If it went against the doctor's religion to offer the service AT ALL, then they're free to deny that service TO EVERYBODY. But picking and choosing is discrimination, and not allowed. Doesn't matter if they're discriminating against people for sexual orientation, or for their religion, or their race, or their gender, or their IQ, etc. Discrimination is WRONG, and that is what the courts addressed here.

Bill wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:02 PM:There is no such thing as seperation of church and workplace.

Individuals are not restricted in any way from practicing religion as long as it doesnt interfere with their duties. Freedom of speech doesnt extend into the workplace for matters such as calling your boss an a-hole and then suing him when he fires you. There is precedental case law that supports that but I know of no binding decision that tests this theory.

Where do some of you read all these rights anyway?

This decision, in no way restricts a doctors right any more than it would a waiter who serves you at Dennys. Should a waiter have the right to refuse service too?

Some would argue that serving a black man or a gay man at Dennys would shock the conscious too.

This is a case of the court showing restraint and not exercising activism.

Some of you are too much.

This would have been a slippery slope had the court not stopped it.

Patrick wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:09 PM:So happy my tax dollars are being spent on this sort of ridiculousness. If someone doesn't want to provide the service, go somewhere else! It just like all you whiners about oil drilling our coast, you actually think ExxonMobil is going to sell that oil to Americans only at a reduced price just because it's our coast? They are going to sell our oil to the highest bidders like India and China. Maybe I can sue the government to stop the oil companies from selling our oil to other countries? Ridiculous.

bogie wrote on Aug 19, 2008 3:10 PM:Indeed a difficult decision for all. I tend to agree with the doctor since it was an elective surgery but do see the point for discrimmination. We will now see how strong the doctors convictions are. Given the court decision I think he needs to look for another profession or drop artificial insemination.

truth revealed wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:14 PM:The true homosexual activist side of Court comes to light in this un-Constitutional, anti 1st Amendment decision. The activists do not want to "live and let live", they will stop at nothing to force THEIR personal values and beliefs down the throats of everyone. (What about a child's right to have the opportunity to have a Mother AND Father...which one would they choose to do without?) They do this regardless of the fact that others have deeply held religious and moral convictions from which they make personal and professional decisions which are meant to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

The Court makes slaves of the people when they force them to act against their conscience and convictions. This decision is clearly against the Constitution and should be overturned. It isn't about invitro or health care for homosexuals, it's about taking away rights protected by the Constitution.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"

LINES ARE DRAWN wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:36 PM:WHAT ARE YOU ALL WORKED UP FOR??? Religion, courts, lawyers, doctors, taxes, judges, gays, straights, etc, etc, etc... Where do all the comments come from? It reminds me of the elementary school playground. Stand back and look at all the little children. The little girls stand in their little groups telling little stories about the other little girls not in their group. The little boys chase each other around with the bullys trying to show how big they are by picking on the little ones. Good grief, people. step back and get hold of your senses. Our boys and girls are dying in a far away land because of beliefs and misinformed ideas. You need to spend more time expressing yourself to your senator and congressman without your emotions. Just learn the true facts and not your beliefs and do something about the REAL problems. NOT FAITH or BELIEFS, but TRUE FACTS...

To Bill wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:43 PM:"But how is this decision forcing the gay lifestyle down anyone's throat?"

1. It forces doctors who may not be of a particular religious conviction to treat without questioning, everyone. This borders a totalitarian-type ruling in what is supposed to be a democracy. Where does a ruling like this stop at forcing doctors to eventually provide abortion care or even euthanasia if legalized?

2. It forces children into a same-sex parenting relationship which basically teaches them either a Mom or a Dad is not needed. It discriminates in the worst possible way by saying one or the other is useless.

3. Studies prove that children raised in same-sex households are more likely to become homosexual themselves. This is only logical because children mirror their parents behavior.

4. It elevates a homosexual's feelings as supreme over the convictions of many Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. who approach life from a religious perspective who believe they would be taking part in an unnatural process.

When a homosexual has the choice between finding a doctor who doesn't have the these convictions vs. pursuing and suing those with deeply held conviction, I would label that "forcing the gay lifestyle down the throat of someone".

Sue Happy Society wrote on Aug 19, 2008 4:58 PM:A plastic surgeon has the right to refuse enhancing surgery to individuals if they deem it inappropriate. If they decide to not take a DDD cup to an F, that is their right. If a plastic surgeon refuses to perform a face lift on an individual such as the New York Catwoman, that too is their right. What exactly is the difference? Elective procedures should never be forced upon an unwilling doctor any more than a lawyer should be forced to defend someone he wishes not too. Civil liberties are not just for those who squeel the loudest.

bogie wrote on Aug 19, 2008 5:38 PM:Sue Happy Society @ 4:58 PM: makes some excellent and very logical points. Maybe "Sue Happy" should be on the 9th Circuit. Can anyone here debate his leap from artificial insemination to other elective surgeries? I believe that if you can, then you must include the arguement that anyone and everyone is intitled to be a biological parent regardless of biological inabilities.
Since modern medicine has provided the pathway for lesbians to fertilize the egg, is the same industry responsible to fertilize all eggs that society requests? Very interesting. Great points for debate "Sue Happy Society" thanks for the contribution.

Jackie Oh wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:06 PM:The North Coast Women's Care ObGyn Practice - has been my OBgyn Practice for NEARLY 13 years - but NO MORE!

I was SHOCKED when I first read this story, a while back.

SHAME on Dr. Fenton (who delivered my 2nd child), and Dr. Brody - who was also present during that delivery.

I will no longer $support North Coast (Close Minded) Women's Care.

very disappointed wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:15 PM:I am truly sickened by the court's decision in this matter. I agree with Jamie. If I asked a plastic surgeon to give me 48 DD breasts, he could say no if he wanted. They found someone to impregnate them. What the heck is their problem? They should have gotten over it and kept their mouths shut. When I think of what they put these poor doctors through, I want to vomit. It's disgusting. What about abortion? Do doctors HAVE to perform an abortion if they don't want to? I HIGHLY doubt it. In fact, I know they don't have to. What the HECK is the difference? I agree with Sue Happy 100%. I hope that lesbians couple didn't get ONE PENNY for this ridculous case. Why should THEY get to impose their values on OTHERS? What next? I can only imagine....

disappointed wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:18 PM:Jackie OH, Are you kidding me? "Shame on Dr. Fenton?" For what, having some morals and integrity? For being a Christian? My GOSH! The doctor GAVE them what they needed to get pregnant (YUCK) and even referred them to another doctor. What the heck else do they want? Was Dr. Fenton a good doctor to you? SHAME ON YOU! Maybe you can go to the same doctor they went to?

bogie wrote on Aug 19, 2008 7:23 PM:Jackie Oh, did the doctors do a good job for you? What exactly do you do for a living that qualifies you to berate these professionals? As I said earlier we will find out how strong the doctors convictions are. If they quit their practice over this, people like Jackie Oh will lose.

tolerance wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:49 PM:Any christian who preaches intolerance is being a very poor christian.

Wayne wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:59 AM:Why does everyone make it sound so easy to just 'get another doctor'?

1) Drs Brody and Fenton were covered by her health insurance. The doctor she finally ended up going to wasn't, costing her thousands of dollars.

2) If the Doctors were so uncomfortable with the idea, why did they treat her for so long before having a moral dilemma collecting all those insurance funds?


And to those of you in love with the term "activist" court, knock it off, it's not fooling anyone. The California court is made up of 6 judges appointed by REPUBLICANS and one appointed by a Democrat.

Vivien wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:07 AM:How is this any different to doctors who refuse to perform "elective" abortions. But then lesbians wouldn't need those, or so they think now. What a croc, there are plenty of doctor's who would do this procedure without a second thought. It is all about the money. If I don't like the way I'm treated by a doctor, for whatever reason, I can change my doctor, even in these days of the big HMO!!

Roberto wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:11 AM:This doesn't even amount to gay issue...it's just plain silly since many other doctors and hospitals are available....what a waste of taxpayer dollars!

Ridiculous wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:26 AM:Docs should have the final say in elective procedures.

Would you make a Jewish doc touch a woman who was on her monthly cycle if he didn't want to? No.

Only Christians get persecuted in this country.

That means wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:00 AM:Christian doctors will have to perform abortions.

This ruling is not right.

That means wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:09 AM:Christian doctors will have to perform abortions even if they don't want to.

This ruling is not right.

To good decision wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:10 AM:You say that my religous views are my own and I should keep it to myself or get our of medicine. Homosexuality is your own "view" and not mine....Keep that to yourself and out of MY PRIVATE PRACTICE. I should have the right to choose if an elective procedure should be done, I should NOT have the choice if it is a life saving issue.

To Civial Rights... wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:30 AM:YOU and people who have you way of thinking are the reason why this state is in the mess it is in. I personnaly do not agree with this ruling. Not because they are gay, but because the decision takes away the moral and ethics that some doctors believe in. Where do we stop here. People said that it is against the rights for a child to have an abortion having to let the parents being notified.....ok, ACLu stepped in and now our kids can get an abortion....with out counceling/outcome mental problems with our kids.....people said illegal immigrants DESERVE healthcare....ok said the ACLU and I am paying for healthcare for millions of peoplel I don't even know. My favorite. Spanking a child is child abuse.....the political idiots said your right it is........now our kids are out of control because the dicipline is gone ( I am saying spanking....NOT beating) Schools are not allow to function properly because everyone sues to get a penny. Life is not simple like it used to be and who do we have to thank.....a bunch of unethical, looser attorney's who went out of their way to descriminate against what the majority of the people want. Put this latest ruling on a ballot, let the people decide. Oh yeah....they did that and guess what? A stupid low life lawyer sued and what the people wanted....didn't matter at all. That folks is called discrimination....maybe I should sue.

This poor child wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:23 AM:can you imagine all the teasing he will receive once he is in school because of the poor judgement made by a selfish woman? How does he explain to other children (forcing other kids to learn about homosexuality) that he has 2 moms? I wouldn't want my innocent child knowing anything about homosexuality until I talk to them about it and that will not be at kinder.age. This is wrong....nothing less than wrong.

great decision wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:21 PM:It a shame that there would have to be a law to protect gay people but I guess there is a need as demonstrated by all the religious bigotry I've read above. I fine gay people usually smarter, more educated, and more interesting than the average person probably because they had to overcome daily discrimination.

Blows My Mind wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:24 PM:It blows my mind how people actually find it OK for a doctor to refuse service to GLBT patients. Here's the deal, you're a doctor...your job is the well-being and health of patients. DO IT! Your patients lives outside of your office has NOTHING to do with your procedure and your work. Allowing doctors to pick and choose their patients based on personal issues is insane to me. If we let them turn away GLBT patients then let's allow them to turn away patients of races they just don't want to work with. And let's allow Christian doctors to turn away Muslims. Let's allow female doctors to turn away male patients because she's not in the mood to deal with men after a bad break-up. I'm sorry but you people are crazy. It absolutely blows my mind.

RE to This Poor Child wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:27 PM:The child will be fine. Don't you worry. And as for teaching your kids about homosexuality all you have to say is "your friend has 2 moms" the end. You're putting way too much emphasis on sex so when you think about a child having two moms you just assume you have to explain sex to your kids. Get over yourself. Same-sex couples are known to be some of the most loving, caring, and passionate parents. Same-sex couples are doing crafts and playing games with their kids right now, while you're here on the computer and your kids are playing x-box. open your eyes

sick of the bigots wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:34 PM:Homosexuality happens. It's part of nature. Nothing is wrong about it. It is religion that is wrong. How many have people have died or been murdered in the name of one God or another? I'm so tired of all the rampant bigotry I read on this site. I regard to children being exposed to homosexuality? Who cares? They are exposed to heterosexuality? All gays were once kids too.

To That Means wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:24 PM:Your statement has no logic. Providing abortions and making is possible for someone to have a child are 2 completely different things!

Please post this NCT wrote on Aug 20, 2008 6:26 PM:To: Truth Revealed: Oh my, you do provide lots of material to respond to. First Amendment violation - please tell us what part of the doctor's First Amendment was violated? There are 5 parts to the First Amendment, do you know what they are? I do, I teach American Government.

Next, you say the child has no say in whether or not his or her parents are female and male. How about children born to heterosexual parents who abuse their child? Any say there? How about people who forgo the abortion and have the child only to give it up for adoption. The child spends its life in the foster care system. Or worse yet, is adopted, or kept and resented, and abused. Is that preferable to an abortion? Those of you, and there appear to many on this blog, who are opposed to abortion, where are you when these children are born to people who do not want them and they spend a childhood in foster care or worse? You're there to speak for the unborn, but you abandon them when they're here and unwanted.

And then there's the accusation that this decision was handed down by an "activist court." Really? Because the court sided with the Constitution it's an activist cou