Sexual orientation laws trump religious freedom, California Supreme Court says (CNA)

[fix]

I guess what it comes down to is that doctors should not refuse any service based on their evaluation of a particular patient’s sinful lifestyle. However, a doctor should not be required to perform a service which they believe in and of itself is immoral. The example from this article falls into the latter category, not the former.

I am not sure that is even a good idea. There may be a MD who provides licit fertility treatment for married couples that does not want to provide it for unmarried folks. Should he/she be forced to act against their convictions?

 

[Fitswimmer]

This is a very unique and bizarre situation in which it seems no matter what happens we open our way to a slippery slope of unwanted consequences. On the one hand, if we ignore religious freedom, we have Catholics (and other religious beliefs) forced to act against God’s law, which is clearly unacceptable. On the other hand, if it is decided to allow religious beliefs to, on some level, dictate what can and cannot be done physicians then we could very possibly have non-religious, non-Catholic doctors pulling the freedom of religion card when the intent IS discrimination.

Now, I do not know how likely any of this is. What I do know is this needs national attention. Lines need to be drawn…carfefully. This has a great potential to go horribly wrong.

Thank you! This situation does not lend itself to Black/White thinking. We have to be careful of what we endorse here because of the potential consequences. This will have to be handled very precisely to avoid problems.

Personally, I think the MD’s need to make the choice when they choose what job to take, just like anyone else does. I wouldn’t take a job with Planned Parenthood and then assert my religious rights not to do the work.

 

[Joe_5859]

And that is the MD’s right-because they can choose what they wish to specialize in. However, once they’ve made that choice, I think they need to check their personal feelings at the door.
If they don’t want to do X procedure on X member of X group-then it’s their choice not to specialize or practice a type of medicine that includes that procedure.

I understand your sentiment and I think that’s probably true in certain scenarios (maybe even this one), but I think that this approach can also be very harmful. For examples, if all OB-GYN’s were required by law to perform an abortion upon a patient’s request and they could not appeal to their moral convictions, that would effectively chase away any and all pro-life doctors from ever becoming an OB-GYN. The entire discipline would be surrendered to those who hold a view that is diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Thus, no woman in the U.S. would even be able to choose a doctor who shared her views on the sanctity of the life of her unborn child. That doesn’t seem like a very good solution to me.

I’m not sure where this situation in California fits in. For us Catholics, we believe artificial insemination is immoral regardless of whether or not the woman is married, single, straight, or gay. So there isn’t much of a moral distinction between who gets artificially inseminated.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I understand your sentiment and I think that’s probably true in certain scenarios (maybe even this one), but I think that this approach can also be very harmful. For examples, if all OB-GYN’s were required by law to perform an abortion upon a patient’s request and they could not appeal to their moral convictions, that would effectively chase away any and all pro-life doctors from ever becoming an OB-GYN. The entire discipline would be surrendered to those who hold a view that is diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Thus, no woman in the U.S. would even be able to choose a doctor who shared her views on the sanctity of the life of her unborn child. That doesn’t seem like a very good solution to me.

I’m not sure where this situation in California fits in. For us Catholics, we believe artificial insemination is immoral regardless of whether or not the woman is married, single, straight, or gay. So there isn’t much of a moral distinction between who gets artificially inseminated.

I think pro life OBGYN’s should be taught the procedure, but they should not be mandated to provide it. An OBGYN could establish a practice that did not perform abortions, as long as women who did not share their fbeliefs had access to a practice or clinic that did and still not violate the law.

I know that in therapy situations, Christian and Catholic therapists set up their own practices and use their beliefs freely in counseling. They also state clearly that they do counsel from a Catholic/Christian background so that people are free to seek other therapists if that would not work for them. It may be a leap, but it should work the same way, right?

 

[fix]

For us Catholics, we believe artificial insemination is immoral regardless of whether or not the woman is married, single, straight, or gay. So there isn’t much of a moral distinction between who gets artificially inseminated.

Just for clarification sake:

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

"In its natural structure, the conjugal act is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation on the part of the husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the proper nature of the act is the expression of the mutual gift which, according to the words of Scripture, brings about union ‘in one flesh’ ".(52) Thus moral conscience “does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined solely either to the facilitating of the natural act or to ensuring that the natural act normally performed achieves its proper end”.(53) If the technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it can be morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit. Artificial insemination as a substitute for the conjugal act is prohibited by reason of the voluntarily achieved dissociation of the two meanings of the conjugal act…

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

So, if for some situations this is licit for married couples why must the MD do it for non married couples too?

 

[Michael_Neal]

I think pro life OBGYN’s should be taught the procedure, but they should not be mandated to provide it. An OBGYN could establish a practice that did not perform abortions, as long as women who did not share their fbeliefs had access to a practice or clinic that did and still not violate the law.

I know that in therapy situations, Christian and Catholic therapists set up their own practices and use their beliefs freely in counseling. They also state clearly that they do counsel from a Catholic/Christian background so that people are free to seek other therapists if that would not work for them. It may be a leap, but it should work the same way, right?

Shouldn’t the fertility doctors have the same freedom to use their beliefs freely in their practice?

 

[Joe_5859]

I am not sure that is even a good idea. There may be a MD who provides licit fertility treatment for married couples that does not want to provide it for unmarried folks. Should he/she be forced to act against their convictions?

Good point.

The thing that really bothers me about these types of situations is that it seems people are intentionally trying to make an issue of it in order to force people to buy into their ideology. Would it really take that long for any unmarried gay woman in California to find a doctor that is willing to artificially inseminate her? That seems doubtful. These doctors from this case are probably in the vast minority. And yet people seem intent to turn it into a legal battle rather than simply find another doctor.

Personally, if I were the woman in question, I wouldn’t want a doctor who thought what they were doing for me was immoral. I’d be worried they’d botch the procedure on purpose. I’d much rather find a doctor who believed in what they were doing.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Shouldn’t the fertility doctors have the same freedom to use their beliefs freely in their practice?

But aren’t fertility procedures against Catholic teaching to start with?

 

[HappyPerson]

We have NOTHING to fear. The gates of Hell shall NOT prevail over the Church. We need to trust the promises of Jesus. Those doctors need to trust the promises of Jesus. If that means they lose their jobs, well, guess what, people overseas are losing their lives, children, and freedom to take a stand for Jesus.

The government can NEVER compel anyone to sin against God. We ALWAYS have the right to refuse. We need to be strong in our faith.

We need to be Heavenly minded, and realize that no dissenting views against the very truth of God will exist in Heaven. We won’t have to put up with this left-wing “civil rights” garbage, because all those in Heaven, from every tribe tongue and nation will be united, praising the One True God.

 

[fix]

Good point.

The thing that really bothers me about these types of situations is that it seems people are intentionally trying to make an issue of it in order to force people to buy into their ideology. Would it really take that long for any unmarried gay woman in California to find a doctor that is willing to artificially inseminate her? That seems doubtful. These doctors from this case are probably in the vast minority. And yet people seem intent to turn it into a legal battle rather than simply find another doctor.

Personally, if I were the woman in question, I wouldn’t want a doctor who thought what they were doing for me was immoral. I’d be worried they’d botch the procedure on purpose. I’d much rather find a doctor who believed in what they were doing.

I agree absolutely!

It is about politics. The biggest problem I see is that we can have the secular state try to bind a citizen to act immorally.

 

[Joe_5859]

Just for clarification sake:

So, if for some situations this is licit for married couples why must the MD do it for non married couples too?

Thanks for the clarification. I did not know that there could be a morally acceptable means of artificial insemination, since the ordinary way sperm is collected is through an immoral method. I suppose that must mean there is some moral means by which it could happen. I guess I don’t need to know the details, though.

 

[SumEns]

What you are all mentioning is exactly what I meant. It seems no matter what, someone’s rights are going to get trampled. The degree to which they get trampled is a whole other story. I do not see how any court could have come to a conclusion so easily. This is a very difficult issue to ponder. In a sense this is a war between secular and religious authority.

We would also have to consider that if this decision is overturned it is going to fire up the Planned Parenthood political machine, every angry atheist, and Pro-Homosexual organization is going to protest, and, unfortunately, these groups have more political power than ever before.

This is a lose-lose situation. Secular law of man, or rightous law of God?

 

[Joe_5859]

But aren’t fertility procedures against Catholic teaching to start with?

Some are and some aren’t. In Vitro fertilization is wrong. Artificial insemination (I’m discovering) can be done in a licit way (though ordinarily I don’t think it happens that way). There are also other moral means (such as certain drugs). I have a friend who was having great difficulty conceiving until she went to a fertility specialist. She and her husband are faithful Catholics and they never considered any method that goes against Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, they did take advantage of moral means and now have two beautiful children.

 

[HappyPerson]

We would also have to consider that if this decision is overturned it is going to fire up the Planned Parenthood political machine, every angry atheist, and Pro-Homosexual organization is going to protest, and, unfortunately, these groups have more political power than ever before.

We don’t have to fear them. Our God is stronger than them. It is those organizations who should fear our God. God wills for them all to be saved, as we should, too.

They can only defeat us if we cower in fear to them, allow them to make us hate them, or allow them to influence us to sin against God. We need to stand strong, united as God’s children, being that shining city on a hill.

It may be just a matter of time before the American culture war evolves into Civil War 2.

 

[Michael_Neal]

But aren’t fertility procedures against Catholic teaching to start with?

yes, but that does not justify adding more sin on top of it

 

[Fitswimmer]

Some are and some aren’t. In Vitro fertilization is wrong. Artificial insemination (I’m discovering) can be done in a licit way (though ordinarily I don’t think it happens that way). There are also other moral means (such as certain drugs). I have a friend who was having great difficulty conceiving until she went to a fertility specialist. She and her husband are faithful Catholics and they never considered any method that goes against Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, they did take advantage of moral means and now have two beautiful children.

I wasn’t aware of that-so that makes it even more difficult.

I’m still of the position that the individual chooses the job that they will take and they should choose that job with both eyes wide open. All of us who are out in the working world need to make choices all the time about how our faith fits into our working life. Are we maximizing profits while harming people? Are we dealing with clients in an ethical manner? Does the company we work for operate morally, does it fund charities that are against our faith?

For medical professionals the stakes are much higher, but they still bear the responsibility of making wise choices from day 1.

 

[Newbie2]

And that is the MD’s right-because they can choose what they wish to specialize in. However, once they’ve made that choice, I think they need to check their personal feelings at the door.
If they don’t want to do X procedure on X member of X group-then it’s their choice not to specialize or practice a type of medicine that includes that procedure.

I think pro life OBGYN’s should be taught the procedure, but they should not be mandated to provide it. An OBGYN could establish a practice that did not perform abortions, as long as women who did not share their fbeliefs had access to a practice or clinic that did and still not violate the law.

I know that in therapy situations, Christian and Catholic therapists set up their own practices and use their beliefs freely in counseling. They also state clearly that they do counsel from a Catholic/Christian background so that people are free to seek other therapists if that would not work for them. It may be a leap, but it should work the same way, right?

First quote, check beliefs at door, second quote, docs should not be mandated to provide a service in which they are morally opposed.

 

[Wolseley]

This is a very unique and bizarre situation in which it seems no matter what happens we open our way to a slippery slope of unwanted consequences. On the one hand, if we ignore religious freedom, we have Catholics (and other religious beliefs) forced to act against God’s law, which is clearly unacceptable. On the other hand, if it is decided to allow religious beliefs to, on some level, dictate what can and cannot be done physicians then we could very possibly have non-religious, non-Catholic doctors pulling the freedom of religion card when the intent IS discrimination.

Now, I do not know how likely any of this is. What I do know is this needs national attention. Lines need to be drawn…carfefully. This has a great potential to go horribly wrong.

Too late.

 

[pnewton]

I think pro life OBGYN’s should be taught the procedure, but they should not be mandated to provide it. An OBGYN could establish a practice that did not perform abortions, as long as women who did not share their fbeliefs had access to a practice or clinic that did and still not violate the law.

But in some cases access should not matter. For example, no law should force anyone to commit murder. Period. In some cases, practicing civil disobience or even open rebellion is preferable to following the law. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. Morality is God’s domain.

 

[Fitswimmer]

First quote, check beliefs at door, second quote, docs should not be mandated to provide a service in which they are morally opposed.

They don’t have to provide it-they can choose not to enter into a practice where they would have to. This isn’t Communist China, we don’t force people into career choices.

If your faith is that important to you, wouldn’t you be careful about your choice of employment so that you are not put in a position of having to violate it?

It is the individuals responsibility to make choices that do not violate his/her faith.