Political Correctness v. A Good Conscience

from the August 26, 2008 eNews issue

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree."
-Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt

During the past week, political correctness has dealt medical professionals a blow, and freedom of conscience has jabbed back.

On the West Coast, two Christian doctors were told last week that their moral and religious beliefs did not give them the freedom to refuse to artificially inseminate a lesbian. In 2000, two Christian fertility doctors at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group told Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, they could not in good conscience artificially inseminate her. They referred her to another fertility specialist who did not hold the same moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children. The change in fertility specialists cost Benitez several thousands of dollars, however, because North Coast was the only ob-gyn provider covered under her employee health care plan. In 2001, Benitez sued North Coast for discriminating against her because she is a lesbian.

Under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, businesses are not free to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. The law was originally written to keep businesses like hotels and restaurants from discriminating against potential customers based on race. The state legislature later expanded the law to include age and sexual orientation and, by 2006, marital status as well.

In this recent case, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that the law also applies to medical practices. According to the unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court, the doctors' rights to freedom of speech and religion did not exempt North Coast from being required to offer patients the same services equally. In fact, now that marital status is included under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, at least one doctor at North Coast would be required to inseminate any unmarried woman who requested the service, regardless of the doctor's personal moral and religious beliefs. These do not only include situations in which the life or health of the patient is at risk, but also include the patient's personal life choices.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote:

"I do not necessarily believe the state has a compelling interest in eradicating every difference in treatment based on sexual orientation....However, I agree that California has a compelling interest, furthered by the Unruh Civil Rights Act, 'in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation,' including a right to full medical assistance in establishing a pregnancy."

Robert Tyler, one of the lawyers for North Coast, accused the Supreme Court of promoting a "radical agenda":

"The Supreme Court's desire to promote the homosexual lifestyle at the risk of infringing upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is what the public needs to learn about."

On the East Coast, on the other hand, the Bush Administration has proposed to strengthen the protections for doctors who refuse to participate in abortions. The proposal would give teeth to existing laws that guard doctors from being forced to perform abortions against their moral or religious beliefs. It would require federally funded doctors and hospitals to prove they have an opt-out policy in place, and would also make it easier for health care professionals to file complaints if they are attacked for declining to perform abortions. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt told reporters:

"The basic idea is that people should not be forced to say or to do things they believe are morally wrong. In particular, health care professionals should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience."

The new rule must go through a 30-day public comment period before it can be finalized, but it promises to encourage highly qualified doctors to care for women and children without fear of being forced to perform abortion procedures against their beliefs.

As America continues to divide along sharply divided moral lines, the chasm will also deepen on the field of politics. To learn more, click on the links below.