|
Published: August 19, 2008
“This decision cannot stand”
California Supreme Court rules against Vista doctors who refused to artificially inseminate lesbian on religious grounds
California physicians may not refuse treatment to patients based on their sexual orientation even if it violates their religious beliefs, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
 In a unanimous decision, the high court said two Vista physicians who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian from Oceanside because their religious convictions prohibited such procedures for unmarried persons could be sued for violating the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, reversing an appellate court that had ruled otherwise.
“Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no,” said the unanimous court.
Writing for the court, Justice Joyce Kennard said doctors may refuse to perform a particular procedure for all patients, but could not single out patients based on sexual orientation and refuse them treatment. Kennard mentioned a 2004 state Supreme Court ruling that forced Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees in its health coverage plans. In that case, the court ruled Catholic Charities was not covered by the law’s exemption for religious employers because it provides services and hires staff who are not Catholics.
The California Catholic Conference had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the physicians. The two doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of North Coast Women's Care Medical Group of Vista, were sued in San Diego Superior Court in 2001 by Guadalupe Benitez. Benitez claimed the physicians refused to artificially inseminate her after 11 months of fertility treatments when she told them she was a lesbian. Benitez argues that the doctors violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Brody and Fenton, among other defenses, claimed they did not refuse to artificially inseminate Benitez because of her sexual orientation, but instead because she was not married. The two doctors said their religious convictions would not permit them to perform the procedure on an unmarried woman.
 Even though neither Brody nor Fenton would artificially inseminate Benitez, they did refer her to another physician and Benitez ultimately became pregnant, according to court records. She and her lesbian partner of 18 years now have three children as a result of artificial insemination, according to press reports.
The Supreme Court’s decision means the civil case filed against the two physicians by Benitez can now go to trial in San Diego Superior Court.
"This decision cannot stand and we will evaluate our options to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court," said Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, in a statement released via Christian Newswire.
In the same Christian Newswire release, Kenny Pedroza, partner of Cole Pedroza LLP, said, "The doctors are disheartened by the decision, and what it will mean for physicians in the future. However, the California Supreme Court made it clear that the doctors will have their day in court to tell their story to a jury of their peers. Despite plaintiff's argument, the doctors will not be silenced."
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the two doctors, said in a prepared statement, "This case starkly demonstrates the take-no-prisoners approach of the gay rights movement. They will not stop until they have silenced or bankrupted every voice of conscience who disagrees with them. In light of this and similar rulings, PJI is redoubling its efforts to defend people of faith who will not compromise their moral values."
"This is yet another sad day for California and its citizens' freedom," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact. "It seems that every few weeks we witness another constitutional freedom or right being taken away from us by activist judges bent on forcing homosexuality upon us.”
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:55 AM By Sawyer
Look, the legal decision is cut and dry, which is why it was a unanimous opinion: given that sexual orientation is, under California law, a protected class just as much as race or sex is protected, then to deny homosexuals a service offered to others violates California law. It would be just as illegal for a clinic to refuse to artificially inseminate white people while offering insemination services to blacks because race is a protected category. As a matter of legal interpretation and application of statutes, the California Supreme Court judged correctly. However, what this case and decision points out is the insidiousness of considering sexual orientation to be a protected class. Believe me, we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg in California of what the implications will be in society if homosexuality is fully normalized and equated with heterosexuality in the laws of the State. The law will compel people against their consciences to bend to the desires of the lavender mafia or suffer imprisonment, fines or the loss of a job or business. The solution is to persuade people what homosexuality really is: a psychosexual disorder. No rational, virtuous society normalizes in law deviant, disordered behavior or conditions. If homosexuality is considered under the law to have parity with homosexuality, then this ruling -- and much, much worse -- will be commonplace; if homosexuality is considered to be a disordered condition, then ridiculous laws such as the one considering sexual orientation to be a protected class will be stricken from the books. Good luck convincing California that homosexuality is a disorder, though: the lavender mafia has the teachers, the unions, the young, Hollywood, and the Democrat Party in their camp. Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have some courageous, articulate, charismatic, faithful Catholic bishops to guide the flock to the truth?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:47 AM By Tom S
Another example of the erosion of our rights by the gay rights movement.. What will come next? What about the person who refuses to provide a service for a gay couple in the state who wants to get 'married', if the refusal is based upon a religious belief. Examples of such services could be photographers, caterers, florists,people who own reception halls, etc. This decision needs to be reversed, The courts already have too much power.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:59 AM By larry
Strike "sexual orientation" as a protected class out of the law.Who put it in the law???
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:06 AM By Andrew
Did Jesus ever refuse to treat anybody?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:24 AM By St Christopher
A vile and foolish decision issued by a vile and foolish court in an increasingly vile and foolish state. It is time for people of faith, including the good doctors in this case, to "shake the dust from their sandals" and leave the sinkhole that now defines CA. Every dog has its day, as reflected by scripture and it is time to recognize that the big dog in CA is evil and should be left to run its history, while it can.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:24 AM By Jo Ann
Why did God even waste His time, creating "man"? He certainly isn't needed. To place a child in a one-sex household, either by adoption or "artificial insemination" is a form of child "abuse', by depriving the child of both a mother and a father, as God intended a family to be. What next? A Catholic teacher will be forced to teach that homosexuality is a "desireable lifestyle" or loose their job and be sued for "offending" someone. It won't end until Christianity is destroyed. How about impeaching some judges?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:26 AM By Thomas
This is a Republican court, I know why I'm voting Democratic!
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:20 AM By Mike
The solution: shut down all artificial insemination services. These services should not be allowed as it is not part of God's design anyway.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:23 AM By Linda
The Gaystapo win another one.
Our ancestors came to America seeking religious freedom and the California Supreme Court is making a mockery of that. Disordered sexual conduct is trumping religious freedom of conscience in California.
I am waiting for children of these lesbian and homosexual (heterophobic) unions to grow up and sue the state for child abuse! They are being abused by not having the opportunity to grow up in a home where they have a chance to see normal love between a man and a woman. That is almighty God's standard that has been understood since time began.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:25 AM By Mike
The solution: shut down all artificial insemination services. These services should not be allowed as it is not part of God's design anyway.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:31 AM By JLS
Andrew, are you saying that Jesus is your "step and fetch it"?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:02 AM By Andrew
It reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan. We are told to take care of people regardless, and treat them hospitably and equally, and provide medical care and sustenance, even when they are different from us... or part of a group that we don't like very much.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:06 AM By Brent
"Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have some courageous, articulate, charismatic, faithful Catholic bishops to guide the flock to the truth?"
Oh please. We all know where those comments will lead.
And the comments above are why I no longer consider myself a Catholic. I was born gay, and it's NOT a "psychosexual disorder" as you so eloquently stated.
I know the Catholic canon as well. It is fundamentally flawed, but the people who blindly and continuously follow it are just ignorant. Also, don't throw the Bible quotes at me either. I've heard it many, MANY times before.
I'd bet that, right now, you are wearing something made of wool and linen. Against the teachings of the NT. Also, if you've had a hamburger EVER, again - against the NT. You're not allowed to eat of hooved animals.
It's only a matter of time before the outdated teachings of this church crumble before normalcy. See you in the future.
Although, now, I see that the editor must approve these comments, and no one will ever read them, except for him. The Catholic Church does not take criticisms very well - I've seen it first hand.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:07 AM By Grisha
This one raises a lot of questions. 1) What religion do the doctors claim to follow that allows them to do artificial inseminations, but only on married women? The-First-Christian-Church- of-Make-It -Up -As -You-Go-Along? It certainly isn't Roman Catholicism which teaches that artificial insemination is sinful in any event. 2) How did they give her fertility treatments for 11 Months and only when it came time to attempt to conceive realize she was either unmarried or a lesbian? Didn't they wonder why Mr. Benitez was never mentioned? You'd think at the start of this kind of treatment the physician would want to establish why a couple couldn't conceive the "old fashioned" way"
3) Why couldn't another doc at the clinic do it. I'm a Kaiser patient, but I don't think I have the right to be treated by a particular provider. My deals with Kaiser not Dr. Jones. Turns out in the SF Chron this morning that there was no other physician in the practice who could or would do it. Sounds like the whole OB/GYN practice at the clinic is the two defendants 4) OK - So what was the big deal about just going to the other local clinic they referred her to and forgetting about it. Turns out the other clinic wasn't covered under her health plan and it cost her and her partner several grand. I wonder if the health plan isn't complaining to the clinic about not providing services covered by the plan? Very strange case.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:19 AM By Eileen
Love the sinner.....hate the sin! Catholics and other Christian couples who believe that homosexual acts are immoral and offensive to God, should seek psychiatric counseling regarding the devastating emotional effects that the bullying California Supreme Court decision has made. They should schedule appointments with Gay or Lesbian psychiatrists who will be forced for one hour to listen to the couples tell them how they are going to hell for this lifestyle and how this has caused them stress. Graphic photos of red hot flames accompanied with painfully shrill screaming sound effects are also a therapeutically recommended catharsis.Services cannot be denied or the doctors will be sued.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:21 AM By Anne T.
So this is why the homosexual community is pushing for so-called "marriages". I cannot believe we are even discussing such insanity. What about the rights of the children to have both a mother and a father.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:42 AM By Grisha
Mike: If we took your advice, poor doctors Brody and Fenton would be out of business. It's going to be very intersting at the trial to see if they turn out to be Catholics. Talk about "Cafeteria Catholicism."
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:53 AM By Grisha
Eileen - I know a lesbian psychitirst who would love a case like that!
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:00 AM By James
Andrew, Jesus treated everyone that came to Him yes. The differents is that HE treated them of their sin and by that it healed them of their sickness. When something happens to a person in their younger years and they are told that they are this or that, because of what they did, the victim becomes a slave to the accuser, hating the accuser yet trying to free themselves by doing the act again in hopes of freeing themselves from the torment that the accuser has brought into their mind and being.Finally the victim becomes a slave to the torment and starts to except it as truth even forgetting what they where like before being accused.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:05 AM By Andrew
No, I didn't mean Jesus should be some sort of medical servant at anyone's beck and call. I also don't appreciate the racial overtones in your way of phrasing your question, but perhaps that was inadvertent on your part and not covert racism. I was asking if there was ever a time He said, "I won't help you because I think you're different." The Good Samaritan didn't put any qualifications on his helpfulness.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:06 AM By James
Andrew, Jesus treated everyone that came to Him yes. The differents is that HE treated them of their sin and by that it healed them of their sickness. When something happens to a person in their younger years and they are told that they are this or that, because of what they did, the victim becomes a slave to the accuser, hating the accuser yet trying to free themselves by doing the act again in hopes of freeing themselves from the torment that the accuser has brought into their mind and being.Finally the victim becomes a slave to the torment and starts to except it as truth even forgetting what they where like before being accused.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:30 AM By Karl from Poway
Eileen, you seemed to be reading too much Jonathan Edwards lately in the regard to your homophobic statements. How do know what hell is like? "Do not judge. lest you be judged" "those without sin, cast the first stone. Have you ever heard these words from Jesus?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:28 PM By Phil
If Catholic teaching says no artificial insemination for anyone, what does her sexual orientation have to do with anything? What good reason would there be to discriminate against her because she's a lesbian? Artificial insemination is not a homosexual act. Being a lesbian doesn't mean she's unmarried. She could be a lesbian who is married to a man. Even if doctors refuse simply because she's unmarried, that too is against the law. The law does not allow businesses that are open to the public to discriminate no matter what someone's "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation." If the doctors want to get out of the artificial insemination business, the law allows that.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:41 PM By Eileen
Karl from Anywhichway is OK, Love the sinner but by all means .....Be Mortal Sin-ophobic!
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:57 PM By Andrew
James, after your second sentence, what were you trying to say? When something *like what* happens to a person in their younger years, and then they are told *what*? Like if a person is molested by a pedophile priest, and then he is told he is a sinner because of that, he will keep trying to be molested to free himself from the torment, even though he hates the priest who is molesting him? Would you mind providing a specific example of what you mean and showing how it applies here; your statement was vague.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:10 PM By JLS
Andrew, make sure you do not compromise your faith while you're helping everyone. If you're associating my use of "step and fetch it" with racism, you're falling for the pc hype of our era. "Step and fetch it" did not begin 400 years ago in the tobacco fields, but long before that, notably in Egypt, and that was not the origin of it either.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:35 PM By Ronnie
Thomas...You can't be serious thinking that these jurists were conservative Republicans!...They are RINO (Republican in Name Only).....We must elect true Republicans or else the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy socialist Dems will destroy this country. It's bad enough that people were fooled into believing these justices were Republicans...Can you imagine what will happen if the Dems will in November...
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:37 PM By Patrick Clark
There are many laws on the various State books which are unconstitutional and just need somebody with the money to take the case to the US Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court is operating under the assumption no doubt that this will not be taken further up the judicial line. One might note that Freedom of Religion and Speech is the Number One Amendment to the US Constitution, and there is a reason for that. In this case, alleged discrimination aside, the first attack on free speech is an attack on religious belief, made to appear as discrimination or hate speech based upon archaic principles, then the speech itself become prohibited as hate speech. Same technique used in the Soviet Union and Red China and other smaller dictatorships.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:45 PM By Life Lady
When is all this going to end? Well, "The Big One" is still being contemplated, and threatened. I guess we will all see that one end it all. Also, there is something to say for calling a disorder a disorder. Homosexuality is a disorder. When did the asylum begin running this state? I can't recall when that disorder (homosexuality) was stricken from the books as a disorder, and I cannot recall when that disorder became protected, but this is the result. The loonies are running the state. I say, lets all run for cover, because the mountains are going to fall on us, and there will be no place for us to hide, not even for ms benitez and her friend. Suffer the poor children, but the rest of us better be prepared, its going to be a very bumpy ride.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:03 PM By Anne T.
Oh, come on, Phil. We all know this is just a con game. If this goes through it could affect all fertility clinics, even Catholic or those of other religions that do not artifically inseminate. Even some Republicans are involved in some of this now. One well-known Republican politician's daughter was artificially inseminated and lives with her lesbian lover. I don't trust most or any politicians anymore, and since most politicians now receive very low ratings from the public, most Americans do not trust them either.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:27 PM By Dave
Prior to this ruling, could a doctor have decided (for example) to withhold HIV treatment from the gay population, but provide it to only to straights, because of his/her religious beliefs? Or syphilis shots? Or flu vaccinations?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:35 PM By The other Mike
Hundreds of laws to protect and promote the homosexual, but not one to protect innocent children. These California judges and politicians have turned away from God so often, they really have passed the point of no return. Does anyone really believe it is in the best interest of a child to be raised by two lesbians? The child's civil rights and human rights are conviently forgotten, trampled, and discarded by the self-interest of homosexualists and thier apologists. Very liberal and progressive, isn't it?
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:19 PM By Andrew
"make sure you do not compromise your faith while you're helping everyone." What does that mean? Why can't someone answer my question, yes or no? Did Jesus put qualifiers on the Good Samaritan story? I didn't remember it that way and I just looked it up again to make sure. There aren't any. And if I misunderstood "step and fetch it" outside of racial overtones then you could at least explain to us what you meant, without being coy. It means something fairly specific to some of us out here in a broader, non-white population.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:57 PM By garvan
Spread the word to all California Christians: when the doctors go to trial, it only takes ONE juror to prevent a guilty verdict.
And then, if the DA tries them again, it only takes ONE member of the next jury to vote "not guilty" in the privacy of the jury room. And on and on until the DA decides he's tired of pursuing the case. A single juror can do more good then 100,000 voters.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:00 PM By Anne T.
Dave, don't be stupid. You know the answer to that question. Every pro-life doctor would give treatment to anyone if it meant saving theirs lives. Artificial insemination is not needed to save lives.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:08 PM By Tom S
I read that Guadalupe Benitez has three children now. Its really tragic bringing chidren into this world in the context of a homosexual relationship. I wonder what the long term affect on these chidren will be when raised by homosexual partners.
Someday people will realize what a mistake it has been allowing children to be involved in such a warped relationship.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:17 PM By Dave
This is a fair ruling. None of us would want to set a precedent where a doctor could decide, based on his religious beliefs, that he would treat only Lutherans and Methodists, but not Catholics, just because he didn't believe in Catholicism and thought the Pope was human and therefore fallible. Sometimes we need to be more careful about what we wish for.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:00 PM By Sawyer
Andrew, for pity's sake, the parable of the Good Samaritan is about the Samaritan providing life-saving assistance to someone in grave need. Proving such life-saving assistance is not analogous to providing medically unnecessary, optional treatment such as artificial insemination. Hence, the parable does not apply to the situation described in this news story. You cannot legitimately claim that the command to love your neighbor requires Christians to give in to any request that comes from another person.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:27 PM By Eileen
Grisha.....Now, why am I not surprised! Be careful, once we have totally converted the pyschiatrist that you know...she and I are both coming after you! Don't be foolish and wait till the last minute. You'll be taking a very big "Eternal" risk. I'd prefer you spend your eternity with the elect than to stubbornly gamble your soul for a reject. Choose "Eternal Life" not the temporary party life. God gave you a free will, it's either St. Grisha or Wailing and Gnashing Grisha. Choose wisely!
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:34 PM By Eileen
Andrew, A better example would be the woman caught in adultery where the people wanted to stone the woman and Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" Everyone departed Andrew because they knew they were all sinners too. This applies to all of us. Jesus remained alone with the woman standing in the midst. And Jesus, raising himself said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned thee?" She said, "No one Lord". Then Jesus said, "Neither will I condemn thee. Go thy way and from now on SIN NO MORE. John 8: 2-11. Andrew when everyone uses the phrase judge not lest you be judged, they always fail to add the additional words of Jesus. "Go thy way and from now on sin no more". Jesus who is All Merciful, showed compassion and forgiveness to this woman. We are all sinful, not one of us is without sin as Jesus points out. We should not take advantage of His Mercy and forget those important instructions, "from now on go and sin no more". If we choose to omit this very crucial part of the quote from, "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" we are not being a honest and complete bearer of the entire truth. To only use the first half of Jesus's sentence to the woman caught in adultery to negate sin is wrong. We should all strive to sin no more. Homosexual acts are sinful. We love the sinner but we tell the sinner ....go and sin no more.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:54 PM By Anne T.
Your last post is excellent, Eileen, and there is a time that God does give up on us if we continue in seriously sinful behavior.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:04 PM By JLS
Andrew, I do not have problems when I'm among non-white people. Only the folks with chips on their shoulders looking for some reason to justify their paranoia come up with this sort of allegation. Such people may have problems being non-white, but I do not and will not sink to that level of hatred and calumny. There are racists who are aggressive and there are racists who are passive aggressive, always trying to find some excuse to accuse somebody. It is done out of guilt. Andrew, confess whatever your sins are and get rid of your plaguing guilt, and then you will not have any problems such as you display. If you really feel driven to go after racists, then go find some real ones, and stand up to them. They are there to be found. And get over being non-white ... or do you have so little faith in God that you have to blame somebody for what He creates? Your problem, Andrew, is not race, but a lack of faith and self respect, both of which come from not loving and worshiping God. So get busy and amend your life.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:15 PM By Janet
Once a nation looses freedom of religion and speech that nation is no longer a democracy.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:24 PM By Dave
I believe the ruling as I read it described in the papers applies to all medical treatment - not just artificial insemination. My question was valid - if a doctor (who is a business) had been allowed to pick and choose who he serves based on his religious beliefs, what would stop him from using that as the basis to decide on what other treatments to withhold and from whom.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:29 PM By Andrew
And here I thought the parable of the Good Samaritan was about what it takes to be a good neighbor, show compassion, and about the hypocrisy of the priest and Levite who walked on past because the other person was different and undesirable.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:30 PM By cjo
TIME TO RECALL ALL THE CA SUPREMES !! [BTW..IT's obvious from the comments above that not many Catholics are posting to this site any more!!]
|
Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:11 PM By Kathleen
Mike asks: "Does anyone really believe it is in the best interest of a child to be raised by two lesbians?"
Yup. A kid with 2 moms is much less likely to be molested, raped or killed than a kid with an adult male in the house. Every week, there's another news article about a husband or boyfriend who has killed, kidnapped or sexually molested another child, usually one in his very own household.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:06 AM By Margaret Mary
I would encourage all California Catholic Daily readers, legislators, judges and physicians around America to read the life story of a very courageous young woman Dawn Stefanowicz who was was raised by a homosexual parent. Ms. Stefanowicz went through a very difficult ordeal as a child and teenager and has written a book entitled, "Out From Under The Impact On Homosexual Parenting" which should be a must read for anyone that truly cares about the welfare of all children and youth in America. She also discusses many others that she knew in similar situations and how this all impacted on their lives as well. The Foreword for "Out From Under The Impact On Homosexual Parenting" is By Doctors J. Raney, M. Dillworth & S. Quick. To find out more about this remarkable young woman and her life story check dawnstefanowicz.com. Ms. Stefanowicz travels throughout North America to give public presentations on this very important issue from a very personal experience and perspective and public witness that will both inform and touch the hearts of everyone who listens to this amazing young woman of courage.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:18 AM By Grisha
Garvan - This is a civil case. It only requires a majority. A unanamous verdict is required only in criminal cases.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:54 AM By Grisha
Maybe the answer to the Other Mike's Qquestion is "Better two moms than no mom at all."
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:46 AM By Anne T.
Kathleen, all the males in my family when I was young were "traditional". They never molested me, but protected me. Am I a weak woman? No! I am stonger because of it. I was in girls athletics, etc. and had almost delivered both my children before the doctor got there. Never-the-less, I know my limits. I could not have carried three women, one pregnant, out of a flood as my six-foot cousin did for his pregnant wife, my grandmother and me, and I doubt if any other woman could have done it either. Leonard Sax just wrote a newspaper aritcle entititled "The Twilight Saga sinks its teeth into feminism". It is a "must" read. Women should not be taught to be weak, but neither should they be taught to be male bashers. We do need men and well as women.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:40 AM By Brent
The other Mike says: "These California judges and politicians have turned away from God so often, they really have passed the point of no return." Way to support separation of church and state - or are you now picking out bits and pieces of the Constitution that you want to see, while sticking your fingers in your ears to the other valid sections and saying la la la? Seriously, reading some of these comments from so called Christians makes me so happy that my generation will eventually be the "new" Baby Boomer generation, and your outdated, ridiculous way of thinking will be a thing of the past. Thank GOD.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:03 AM By Dave N.
It's interesting to see so many Catholics (not here, necessarily) jumping to the defense of doctors who openly practice AI. I would put artificial insemination in pretty much the same category as cosmetic surgery--they are elective procedures. They are unnecessary and they don't save lives and usually aren't things that doctors should really be involved in anyway. I suggest these whiners either buck up or chose a different life of work.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:26 AM By The other Mike
Grisha: Better than no mom or two (or more) moms, how about God's plan of one man and one woman, and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply? How in the world can any other "plan" cooked up by perverts with an agenda top God's plan? Why is the rug being pulled out from under normal, stable, man/woman marriage, while extraordinary leaps of faith and corrupt government edicts are required to prop up homosexual couplings??
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:48 AM By The other Mike
Brendt: there is no "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. That phrase is an out of context passage from a letter written by one of the Founding Fathers to his friend. You might want to read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for yourself one day. Or you can continue to believe everything your handlers in public school, the MSM, and DU feed you. To tell you the truth, I've found that very few members of your "new baby boomer generation", with its "updated way of thinking", have ever made any effort to verify any of the tripe they are fed by their handlers. They are too busy downloading internet garbage and Ipoding it directly into their brains! Good luck Brendt, you're going to need it.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:03 PM By Anne T.
Dave, I am sorry that I called you stupid, but I sometimes lose patience with people who try to make pro-life Catholic doctors and other Christian doctors out to be mean culprits when they are not. In fact, they are most of the finest doctors in the world.The best thing for you to do is to read the actual law online. Do not rely on newspapers because most often they inlude the point of view of the writers and not the actual facts. I always read the full context of the propositions on a ballot that are in the voter's guide because quite often one side or the other misrepresents what the proposition actually says. Dave, the most compassionate doctors I have known have been pro-life Catholic and Christian doctors. Some saved my life eighteen years ago. They still take the Hippocratic Oath or a reasonable facimile. Many other doctors do not because they perform abortions, and the oaths forbide that. It is the pro-life Catholic doctors who deliver most of the babies of women in crisis pregnancies which include many women who are not married to their childrens' fathers. These doctors do not refuse to give medicine for the women and children, nor do they refuse to give medine for venereal diseases, but they will not deliberately artificially impregnant a non-married woman. In fact, Catholic doctors are forbidden to use artifical insemination on any woman because the Catholic Church believes a child is entitled to both a mother and a father whenever possible. Dave, I knew a woman who had an IUD put in her body by a non-Catholic doctor. She develped a very bad infection, her doctor told her if was not the IUD. She finally went back to her childhood family doctor who was a devout Catholic with many children of his own. She was not Catholic, though. The Catholic doctor told her the IUD was causing her infection so he took it out, gave her some medicine and she was fine after that. The other doctor lied to her--probably because he did not want a lawsuit.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:01 PM By Fr. M.P.
This is no surprise. We see what a mess sin gets you in, and the waste of time needed in dealing with questions (as highlighted in part by Grisha) caused by vice-filled activities. Mike says very simply and accurately "shut down all artificial insemination services." Eliminate the vice-based root cause and the branches of the tree of bad fruit will go away too. Pray and fight in the system to get this silliness changed into justice.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:15 PM By Anne T.
Dave N. and Fr. M.P. the only reason I defended these doctors right to refuse such treatment to unmarried women is because I believe they will attack Catholic fertility centers next (force them to help unmarried women who are infertile).
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:38 PM By Mac
What on earth does the saving action of the good Samaritan have to do with artificial insemination? Such arguments suggest extreme nuttiness.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:08 AM By Thaddeus
Brent wrote: "I know the Catholic canon as well. It is fundamentally flawed, but the people who blindly and continuously follow it are just ignorant. Also, don't throw the Bible quotes at me either. I've heard it many, MANY times before. I'd bet that, right now, you are wearing something made of wool and linen. Against the teachings of the NT. Also, if you've had a hamburger EVER, again - against the NT. You're not allowed to eat of hooved animals."
You don't know the Bible, you likely know even less about Canon Law.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:20 AM By Grisha
The suggestion that we "Shut down all artificial insemination services" highlights how complicated it is to deal with these issues in a multi confessional democracy. Our religion teaches that all artificial insemination is sinful. The doctor / defendants in this case, who were described as "fundamentalists" in the Lambda Legal site seem to think it's not if the woman is married. If we Catholics were to somehow get hood of the coercive levers of state power and put them out of business, today's ally would become tomorrows enemy. Moreover - If the "services were shut down, lesbians would still conceive using the "at home" method, referred to as "self insemination."
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:17 PM By JLS
Grisha, I'm perplexed by your habitual use of the idea that good comes about by relaxing the standards: "If we Catholics were to somehow get hood of the coercive levers of state power and put them out of business, today's ally would become tomorrows enemy."
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:18 PM By JLS
Brent, if you think like you write, you don't. And this explains why you are so vulnerable to confusion.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:59 PM By The other Mike
State power isn't the problem. State powers are very limited according to the US Constitution. The real problem is that those we entrust to state power abuse that power. Judges who find God-given rights to abortion, and legislators who spend taxpayer dollars to support abortion are not our allies. They are our enemies, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:31 PM By Grisha
JLS: I meant "hold". As to standards, I'm not relaxing standards. MY standard is that haircuts on men should be no more than a quarter inch on top and shaven on the sides and back. High and tight, that's the way it's supposed to be!. Any longer looks ridicules and un manly! Tomorrow morning I'm going to start enforcing those standards in San Francisco.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:24 PM By Grisha
T.O.M: I would expect that Dr. Brody and Dr. Fenton agree with us about abortion. They also likely have beliefs pretty much in alignment with Catholic teachings on homosexuality. On the matter of artificial insemination, they seem to disagree, at least for married (to men) women. I don't know what they believe about contraception. Some fundamentalist Protestants believe it's allowed. Now - are they our enemies or just people who disagree with us?
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:14 PM By JLS
Grisha, when I have to put down an answer on a form in a box next to other boxes which say stuff such as height and weight, which says "hair", I simply say, "yes". In a few more years I might have to modify it by, "yes, believe it or not".
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:13 PM By Anne T.
Thaddeus, the prohibition against mixing wool and linen, and the Jewish dietary laws, were part of the ritual laws of Moses, which were in effect until Jesus Christ the Messiah came. They were symbolic of the holiness and purity for which the Children of Israel were to strive, and that they were a nation set apart who would bring forth the Messiah. The sacrifices were symbolic of the pure lamb of God (Jesus Christ). The ritual law was made null for Christians after Christ fulfilled it in His death on the cross. The ritual law of the Church takes it place--Catholics have a tabernacle, the Lamb of God, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, etc. The MORAL law is still in effect, though, and has not been changed, only made stricter. See the book of Acts where Peter had the vision about the unclean food. It meant that the diety and ritual laws (including circumcision--baptism replaces circumcision, but women are included) of the Old Testament were no longer to be inforced for Christians. The misinterpretation of Scripture is why the Catholic Church has always insisted that the Church majesterium is the one to interpret it properly. The Cathlic Church and some Orthodox churches have the writings of the early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin the Martyr, etc.) also, who knew the Apostles or knew those who knew the Apostles and tell us how it was interpreted back them. Although the Orthodox churches broke away from Rome, they have the same valid sacraments as we do. They also honor the Bless Virgin Mary just as we do.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:22 PM By Anne T.
By the way, Thaddeus, hamburger is not made from ham. It almost always made from beef unless it is otherwise specified. It was not after Hamburg, New York, where the first hamburger was made. See the free online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:02 PM By JLS
One more thang, Grisha; if I were going to stick a toupee on my pate, it'd have a jelly roll and a duck tail. And, as for the command, "Hold", my dog responds well to it. When I don't issue it, he tends to try to make sure the dummy is dead. The sight of this would confuse many of those at the Castro Street Faire, no doubt, especially any psychologists in attendance there.
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 9:30 PM By The other Mike
Grisha: Those two doctors are not elected officials or appointed judges, and are not entrusted with powers of the government. I disagree with their position on artificial insemenation and I am free to not use their services. They are not my enemy, and they are not enemies of unmarried or homosexual people. No one has to use their services, as there are plenty of good doctors all over California, and all have advertisements in the Yellow Pages. If you don't agree with the opinion of one doctor, rest assured there are plenty more to choose from, and many will share your beliefs. If you have a homosexual agenda however, you find a doctor who doesn't agree with you and then you sue them into compliance. So, to answer your question, doctors are not the enemy, rabid progressive perverts are the enemy!
|
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:02 PM By Thaddeus
Anne T:
Tell it to Brent. I was quoting his Tuesday, 10:06 AM post.
|
Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 9:13 AM By JLS
Brent, you indeed represent a generation of booming babies.
|
Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 4:35 PM By Anne T.
Thaddeus, you have my sincere apologies. I missed the first two words of your post. Mea culpa (through my fault).
|
Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 9:36 PM By A
I meant to say in the one of the two posts that I mistakenly addressed to Thaddeus, which was meant for Brent, that hamburger was "named" after Hamburger, New York.
|
Posted Friday, August 22, 2008 11:05 PM By JLS
The US SecHHS is sponsoring a law to beef up a doctor's right not to be forced into complicity in abortion ... this right is going to affect these other perverted issues. I wonder if they'll time it to coincide with the peak moment of nationwide voter decision making.
|
Posted Sunday, August 24, 2008 9:34 PM By Rob
As a friend of Lupita Benitez, I think it is time to clear up some misconceptions which have been written on this board (and provided by the article above). Lupita and her partner were assured by Dr. Brody, that even though she would not perform an insemination procedure based on her religious beliefs, someone at the clinic would. Dr. Brody did start with the reason being that Lupita is a lesbian and later altered that to "unmarried". After 11 months of trying to get pregnant by home methods under Dr. Brody's advice, more assistance was needed. It was at that time that Lupita was told she needed to go elsewhere by Dr. Fenton. In essence, they strung her along and lied to her because she is gay.
I have read some people on this board who wonder how the children are turning out living with two gay parents. After having seen them this past weekend, I can say that they are beautiful, energetic children who are taught that all people have value and that it is wrong to discriminate against a person. In other words, they are better off than a majority of of the bigots on this board who use religion as a way to hide their hatred and insecurity.
Please, be more like Jesus. It can only help.
Go in peace.
|
Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 9:25 AM By Grisha
Rob: Don't be too hard on the "bigots" on this board. I believe that in most cases they have never gotten to closely know any openly gay people. Unfortunately, what is unknown is often feared , disliked and even hated. Certainly the fear mongering and hysteria about things like gay marriage by the right-wing and the activities of fringe elements of the gay community like the Folsom Street Fair don't help. Lesbian couples having children by insemination will become more and more common. Hopefully, those who are Catholic will choose to have their children baptized, receive the sacraments and educated in the faith. Hopefully, our priests, parishes and schools will accept them. I believe most will. Who among us is fit to look Lupita's children in the eye and say to them; " It would have been better if you had never been born."
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|