California Appellate Panel Rules Religious Objection Is Allowable Legal Defense In Case Involving Alleged Fertility Discrimination

Main Category: Fertility
Article Date: 07 Dec 2005 - 4:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

A three-judge panel of California's 4th District Court of Appeals on Friday unanimously ruled that two physicians have the right to argue that their religious beliefs precluded them from performing an artificial insemination treatment on an unmarried lesbian woman, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports (Moran, San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/3). Guadalupe Benitez, who sought artificial insemination to start a family with her partner of 15 years, filed a civil rights lawsuit in 2001 against her physicians and the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group after they refused to treat her. In the original suit, Benitez alleged that Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton violated California's civil rights statutes, which bar businesses and physicians from discriminating against gays, by refusing her the treatment. The physicians said they acted within the law because they refused to provide the procedure for religious reasons. State Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager ruled the physicians could not cite religious beliefs as a defense because an exemption does not exist under the state's antidiscrimination law, which is called the Unruh Act (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/14). The doctors in their appeal to the 4th District Court of Appeals argued that they refused to perform the procedure on Benitez because of her marital status, not her sexual orientation, and would not perform artificial insemination on any unmarried woman (Perry, Los Angeles Times, 12/3). However, Benitez has said that Brody told her she had a religious objection because Benitez is a lesbian, according to the Union-Tribune.

Ruling, Reaction
The court ruled that the question over whether the refusal to treat Benitez was based on marital status or sexual orientation is a "triable issue of fact" because the Unruh Act does not specifically ban discrimination based on marital status, the Union-Tribune reports. The California Supreme Court earlier this year in another case ruled that lawsuits can be filed alleging discrimination based on marital status, but the 4th District Court panel said that precedent did not apply since the decision came after Benitez originally filed her lawsuit. "We believe [the decision] restores the religious liberty defense to our clients properly," Carlo Coppo, the physicians' attorney, said, adding, "It allows a jury to decide if the treatment of Ms. Benitez and her partner was based on sexual orientation, sexual preference or marital status, which is the issue that needs to be tried" (San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/3). Jennifer Pizer, an attorney for Lambda Legal Defense who is representing Benitez, said the decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court. "We fear this decision is going to worsen the confusion in the minds of the public about whether you can legally discriminate in the name of religion," Pizer said, adding, "The bottom line is that you should not be able to treat patients in a discriminatory way" (AP/San Jose Mercury News, 12/3).

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations