Health Law

California Nixes Medical Discrimination By Religous Doctors.

By Greg Piche'

The California Supreme Court has ruled that physicians may not discriminate and withhold  non-emergency medical care based upon their religious beliefs in violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by businesses based on sexual orientation.  In North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. et al. v. San Diego Superior Court, a lesbian, Guadalupe T. Benitez brought suit against the physician group and two individual doctors for refusing to provide intrauterine insemination using unfrozen semen from a friend to assist her obtaining pregnancy. This is a medical procedure in which a physician threads a catheter through a patient's cervix and inserts semen through the catheter into the patient's cervix. One of the physicians claims that her religious belief's in question have more to do with the patient being unmarried than a lesbian, but that is disputed by the plaintiff.

Only two of a number of physicians in the group had religious scruples barring participation in the procedure, but one of the two objecting physicians was the only one of the group licensed to perform the procedure using "fresh" sperm, which apparently requires special preparation for use.Benitez went to another physician outside of the group who was not successful in the procedure. He later fertilized her using in vitro fertilization in 2001.In August of 2001, Benitez sued seeking damages and injunctive relief against the physicians. This case has had a lot of hyperbole from the religious right and from the gay and lesbian community.  There has still not been a trial. The trial court ruled that the defendants could not use religious beliefs as grounds for exemption from discrimination under Unruh.

The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals holding that under the United State's Supreme Court precedent of Employment Div., Ore. Dept of Human Res. V. Smith (1990) 494 U.S. 872, that the right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment , "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on  the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).'" (Nice symmetry that)

Given the near infinite permutations and flexibility of of religious belief, it is hard to imagine any civil rights statute that would not be subject to evisceration based upon allegations of religious belief if the defendants views were to hold sway. In any event, the fact of discrimination and the amount of damages, if any, await further decision in the trial court. Religious press railings against the "homosexual agenda" of the California Supreme Court appear to reflect the ongoing polarization of issues based on hot button political manipulation. The facts seem to suggest that Ms. Benitez did eventually get her procedure, even though unsuccessful. There seem to be significant issues as to the existence of damages here. Both sides will get their day in court.

Full post as published by Healthcare Law Blog on August 19, 2008 (boomark / email).