Religious, gay rights clash in Calif. case
LOS ANGELES - On the heels of its ruling on same-sex marriage, California's highest court will decide another potentially landmark civil rights case: whether doctors can refuse to treat certain patients for religious reasons.
The case reaches back nearly 10 years, to when Guadalupe "Lupita" Benitez of Oceanside was trying to conceive. Benitez, who is gay, says doctors violated her civil rights because they refused her a fertility treatment, saying it was against their religion to perform insemination on a lesbian.
The two doctors and their employer, North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, say they denied Benitez treatment because it is against their Christian beliefs to perform insemination on unwed women, whether heterosexual or lesbian. Their refusal, they argue, is protected by their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Unlike instances in which doctors refuse to perform abortions, this case is unusual in that doctors are seemingly denying services to a select group of patients, said Joan
Either way, the California Supreme Court's ruling could have far-reaching consequences for doctors and businesses, and for unwed women, particularly lesbians, trying to conceive.
"The case raises a whole series of questions about the basis for which people can be denied medical treatment, particularly the extent to which gays or lesbians could be denied access to reproductive technology," she said.
According to the lawsuit, after two years of trying to conceive using an at-home insemination kit, Benitez sought fertility treatment in 1999 at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, a clinic with an exclusive contract with her medical insurance plan.
During their first meeting, Benitez told Dr. Christine Brody that she is a lesbian. Brody replied that, should Benitez require intrauterine insemination, she could not perform it for religious reasons.
The two dispute exactly what Brody said would violate her beliefs. Benitez says it was her sexual orientation; Brody says it was Benitez's marital status.
Still, Benitez began treatment, according to court documents, with the understanding - from Brody - that a different doctor would perform the procedure, if needed. Eventually, Benitez was referred by another North Coast doctor, Douglas Fenton, to a physician outside the medical group.
A lawyer for Brody and Fenton says the referral was prompted by a mix-up in Benitez's chart, which indicated she wanted a procedure requiring live, not frozen, sperm.
Benitez, however, said she was referred elsewhere because of her sexual orientation.
Kenneth Pedroza, the lawyer for the two doctors, said they clearly informed Benitez that their religious beliefs applied to unmarried women.
Jennifer Pizer, a who is representing Benitez, said that while the law protects doctors who refuse certain treatments on religious grounds, it does not allow them to do so on a discriminatory or selective basis.
A trial court sided with Benitez in 2004, ruling that doctors in a for-profit medical group must comply with California's antidiscrimination laws, regardless of religion. An appeals court overturned the decision a year later.
