The Ryan Thomas Collection

The battle for LGBT equality continues its success in California as a rising tide seems to be carrying positive change and crashing upon the status quo. As the nation continues its downward slope economically, politically and socially, a result of the archaic handling at the federal level, Californians continue to fight for progress in a nation that has shyed away from it in the past eight years.

Today’s success for equality comes again from California’s State Supreme Court. As the fight to maintain GLBT marriage continues on the streets, a lesbian couple denied access to a fertility clinic in San Diego County won their anti-discrimination case in an uniamous court decision.

Doctors at the North Coast Women’s Care, in Vista, California, refused to proceed with insemination for Guadalupe Benitez because their Christian beliefs prohibited the action. Benitez and her partner of 18 years were then referred to an alternate facility. The doctors stated they would also refuse to perform the procedure on any unwed couple because of their religious faith. Apparently, these doctors have decided that they are not only medical professionals, but guardians of modern morality. With their M.D. title, the hand of their Christian god granted them permission to pass judgement on who and who should not have a child; particularly basing it on sexual orientation. It sounds quite reminiscent of similar arguments used against equal marriage.

California, with some of the most strict discrimination laws in the nation, already has anti-discrimination laws in place that prevent businesses, including medical facilities, from refusing service to an individual based on sexual orientation. Today’s court ruling further strengthens these laws by ensuring that one’s religious beliefs do not justify discrimination in businesses, including medicine. A very slipperly slope could emerge should medical professionals have been granted the right to place their moral values on a patient’s inherent background when providing care.

Today’s court ruling does allow physicians the right to refuse procedures that are against personal religious beliefs, ie abortions. However, such a decision must be consistent amongst all patients and not based on a patient’s sexual orientation. The ruling also provides an alternative opening for religious protection, allowing one doctor of a practice to refer a patient to another doctor, within the same practice, to perform a procedure, should they feel religious beliefs prevent them from acting. The facility in this court case did not provide such an option.

One of the more amusing arguments to arise, and subsequently be shot down,  consists of the doctors use of freedom of speech to justify their actions and in turn, their inability to refuse service had violated this right. The judges responded simply by stating that these doctors still maintained their right to speak against the anti-discriminatory laws, but still must comply.

2008 continues to be the year of change and forward thinking. As the United States begins to see other nations in the world surpassing it, whether it be economically, politically or militarily, the time for change has been realized. A nation that holds too strongly to tradition, finding itself incapable of progressive growth, is doomed to fall.

As the nation attempts to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East, it is vital to show those abroad that American democracy, liberty and equality is again thriving and looking towards the future. For how does one country convince another to provide women equal rights, when it casts out portions of its own society? This problem arose during the Cold War and helped fuel equal rights movements in the late 50s/early 60s when America tried to convince nations to choose democracy over communism, and yet segregated and discriminated against African Americans. It should be this same situation today that pushes modern American society to fight harder in its quest for a liberated and equal society. It gained one more step in today’s court case and hopefully, will continue through the November’s elections.

Court Case: North Cost Women’s Care Medical Group vs. Superior Court, S142892

(Photos provided by The Ryan Thomas Collection. All rights reserved.)

Popularity: 10% [?]