In this case, the doctors had originally argued that they refused to perform the procedure because Benitez was UNMARRIED, not because she was a lesbian. At the time, gay marriage was illegal and the doctors thought they had a better argument claiming that she instead was "unmarried" rather than that she was a lesbian. Of course, no lesbian could get married, they thought, so it would have the same ultimate effect.

The court ultimately held that this game of the doctors hiding their true motives was problematic and ruled in favor of Benitez.

The supreme court decision included this exchange that took place in the trial courtroom outside the hearing of the jurors:

Counsel for plaintiff asked the trial court: “What basis would there be for [defendant physicians to] present[] their motive to the jury if not to say it was okay that you violated Unruh because you had this religious belief?” The trial court responded that the jurors “are still going to know what the motive [was],” and that defendants “have to tell the jury what happened in this case.” Plaintiff’s counsel then argued that testimony about defendant physicians’ religious motivation for refusing to perform the IUI medical procedure for plaintiff would be “legally irrelevant.” The trial court replied: “Facts are the facts, and the jury is instructed on the law and . . . is going to follow the law.” Ultimately, the trial court agreed to allow plaintiff to reassert at trial her objection to defendants presenting any evidence of religious motive to support their claim that their refusal to perform the IUI medical procedure was based on plaintiff’s marital status as a single woman rather than her sexual orientation as a lesbian. Although the trial court reserved any final ruling on the matter, it added that plaintiff’s position would make “an interesting argument,” and that it had “a hard time envisioning how this case would be presented without telling the jury what happened.”

When everything was said and done, it's now known as a "religious discrimination / sexual orientation" case and not a secular marriage case. This is what happens when lawyers are not honest at the outset about what a case is really about.

Read the full decision at http://religiousliberty.tv/full-text-of-decision-north-coast-womens-care...

Michael

Thank you for this material. It is very helpful!

I have wondered how the the doctors might have responded if they had been given a chance to demonstrate that their refusal was grounded in the longstanding ethical convictions of some community of religious faith.

Perhaps they could have gone straight to the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church that the unitive ["making love'] and procreative [making babies"] goods of human sexual intimacy may never be intentionally separated, whereas most Protestants don't object.

RC ethical thought teaches, quite plausibly, I think, that contraception, sterilization and abortion are all ethically unacceptable partly because they intentionally frustrate the procreative good. Given the premise, the conclusion naturally follows.

Less convincingly, I think, the RC church officially teaches that artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogate gestation are also unacceptable because they frustrate the unitive good.

People whose lives bagan in fertility clinics were not conceived in the required kind of love and this is an ethical problem, RC teaches.

What's the point?

I think it is that, even if it had been allowed, which it wasn't, it would have been very difficult for the doctors to establish a religious justification for discriminating among patients based on either their marital status or their sexual orientation.

This is because the RC objection is directed first of all to the PROCEDURES, NOT PEOPLE, and procedures are not protected by the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Of course, this line of defense---namely that the actions of the doctors were based on religously grounded ethical objections to the procedures of IUI--would make sense only if this is actually why the doctors did what they did.

Thank you!

Dave

This is the sort of thing I find so objectionable, particularly because it is offered in the name of Jesus Christ. It is from "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality:"

"Folks, if California is truly a pacesetter for the nation, then America is in big trouble. How ironic that pro-homosexual so-called “nondiscrimination” laws are the new tool for activist-minded judges and liberal legislators to DISCRIMINATE against people of faith.

This astonishing 7-0 California Supreme Court decision is further proof that homosexual agenda laws — which create newfangled “rights” based on deviant sexual and gender preferences — are incompatible with our cherished, historic American liberties, in this case, the right NOT to violate one’s own religious beliefs.

The “gay” movement is in the vanguard of destroying religious freedom in this nation — even as “queer” activists (and their attorneys) continue to play the victim card. Homosexual “Rights” vs. Religious Freedom is a zero-sum game: when “gay” lawyers win, as in this case, look for freedom to lose. What further proof do we need that “rights” based on sexual perversion are themselves a perversion of genuine civil rights?

The lesson for pro-family advocates and lovers of liberty is clear: in states where there are no ’sexual orientation’ laws, they must never be passed. In states where pro-homosexual laws are on the books, they must be repealed to preserve freedom. And God help us if the Gay Lobby and its (mostly) Democratic allies in Congress succeed in their goal of creating federal “rights” based on homosexuality. That would be a homosexual lawyer’s dream come true."

I really do believe that Jesus will be found more quickly in the Supreme Court's unaminous decison than in this kind of material.

Many thanks!

Dave

Prof. Larson,
I realize that you “volunteered” to post your comments from this LLU meeting but why didn’t you offer to contact others for the same rights? How about let’s keep selfs under control and move Spectrum to “fair and balanced.” Can Spectrum post the Religious Liberty lawyer’s comments also? I would give your arguments a “C” and the lawyer from Religious Liberty an “A.” This is because I come from 30 years working in a union environment (public high school) where “ethics” are defined and implemented without the freedom of thought, speech, and actions allowed in the Adventist cocoon. This background gives a different perspective on the entire panel discussion last Sabbath. I would suggest that ethics professors take a year or two sabbatical and enter the public high school environment as background and decision expansion experience for realistic ethics discussions. Also, while visiting my working students’ restaurant employers, I often saw the sign “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I had students who were not served at McDonalds. Maybe an ethics lesson is needed for the restaurant managers in our community? Or maybe extending the sabbatical to work in a business environment would be beneficial to ethics professors also.

Dave

It's never easy to put together a truthful account but my reading of the same story that was told in court gave me the impression the physicians involved tried to be as helpful as they could, referring their patient to other qualified professional colleagues without violating their own personal code of ethics. Let me know if you still think there's enough reason for us to believe that either Dr Brody, Dr Fenton, or both have been unkind and unfair; that they deserved condemnation as unfit role models for their profession.

'From August 1999 through June 2000, Dr. Brody treated Benitez for infertility...

'The parties agree that when Benitez told Dr. Brody she wanted to use her friend’s donated fresh sperm for the IUI, Brody replied that this would pose a problem for North Coast. Its physicians had performed IUI either with fresh sperm provided by a patient’s husband or sperm from a sperm bank, but never with fresh sperm donated by a patient’s friend... [So] Benitez opted to have the IUI with sperm from a sperm bank. Dr. Brody so noted in Benitez’s medical records and then left for an out-of-state vacation.

'During Dr. Brody’s absence, her colleague, Dr. Douglas Fenton, took over Benitez’s medical care.... Of North Coast’s physicians, only Dr. Fenton was licensed to perform these tasks. But he refused to prepare donated fresh sperm for Benitez because of his religious objection. Two of his colleagues, Drs. Charles Stoopack and Ross Langley, had no such religious objection, but unlike Dr. Fenton, they were not licensed to prepare fresh sperm. Dr. Fenton then referred Benitez to a physician outside North Coast’s medical practice, Dr. Michael Kettle.

'The IUI performed by Dr. Kettle did not result in a pregnancy. Benitez was unable to conceive until June 2001, when Dr. Kettle performed in vitro fertilization.[3]

'In August 2001, Benitez sued North Coast and its physicians, Brody and Fenton, seeking damages and injunctive relief on several theories, notably sexual orientation discrimination in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.'

JoAnn

Thank you for your provocative and helpful comments!

I am certain that you are correct in your thought that spending some time where you have served would help me see things from that angle more clearly.

This not being likely, at least in the near future, I'm dependent on you and others to share from your own experiences as you have done. Again, thank you!

According to the California Unruh Civil Rights Act no business can discriminate solely on the basis of race........ If the signs you see declaring that some business reserves the right to refuse to serve anyone applies to such things, they are illegal.

My guess is that those who put them up would say that they are reserving the right not to serve unruly customers and the like, without regard to race, gender and so forth. Nothing in the Unruh act prevents that, and neither should it.

Joselito

As I understand it, for all practical purposes your rendition of what actually took place is agreed to by all the parties.

My understanding of the California Supreme Court in this case is that it explictly focused its attention upon the legal theory at stake, not the facts about what actually took place.

I am puzzled by the presentation by Edwin Meese, former Attorney of the United States, on behalf of the doctors.

Part of it deals with the legal theory, but much of it attempts to clarify what actually took place and and then to establish, as you have correctly indicated, that Guadalupe Benitez suffered no harm because of the clinic's assistance in helping her have needs met elsewhere.

I don't know this to be the case, but if I were one of the justices I think I might have been annoyed by this.

If all parties know that the issues before the Supreme Court are about the legal theory and not the facts, and one side goes into a long discussion of the facts, I might not be pleased.

But, to his credit, Edwin Meese said right up front that he could not wholly develop his theoretical argument without reference to the facts in the case.

My own view is that this was one of several tactial errors on his team's part that contributed to the unwelcomed outcome.

Another is that I think they should have defended the doctors' refusal as an objection to the IUI PROCEDURE, not to Benitez's sexual orientation and not to her marital status.

But it would not have been right to say this in Court if this was not the reason the doctors did what they did.

This is my understanding of things. I'm eager to hear those of others.

Thank you!

Dave

P.S.:

I think it would be great if the others on the panel submitted their remarks to Leigh Johnsen for possible posting here. That's what I did!

I have alerted Alan Reinach to what I have done and invited him to join our conversation. He could do this in a statement of his own, as you suggest, or in this thread.

The first would have to be approved by the "Spectrum" team, as is everything I write to be posted as a column or blog entry. Not everything I have ever sent in has been posted, thankfully!

Dave,

I should clarify that while I believe that the issues should have been properly framed at the beginning, I do have serious concerns about the court's reasoning in the Benitez case.

Before I begin this post,while I do agree with "in re Marriages" which I believe recognized an existing legal/constitutional right, I also believe the court erred in Benitez.

Looked at from a legal point of view rather than an "ethical / theological" point of view, I think that the fact that services were not "emergency" services and that referral was made to a physician willing to perform was sufficient to fulfill the doctor's ethical obligation.

The precedent established by Benitez could force doctors to perform physician-assisted suicide (if it became legal in California), Abortion, Elective plastic surgery that would disfigure a patient. Benitez leaves little to no room for professional judgment when rendering services to any member of the Unruh classes.

You make the assertion that, "Only prostitutes, only those who belong to the oldest “profession,” have an absolute right always to select their clients any way they want. Doctors, ministers, and lawyers do not have this right." As an attorney, I would like to continue to have the discretion to refuse cases or refer cases to other attorneys without fear of lawsuit. I believe that lawyers can indeed refuse to provide services to anybody. We only have limited time and resources and certainly cannot be forced to take every case that comes along.

Likewise ministers have the right to always select their clients any way they want to. Pastors can refuse to marry couples based on any criteria (including protected criteria), can refuse to work at certain churches, can refuse to do almost anything that they have an ethical / religious / or other objection to.

Whereas I do not believe that the marriage decision created a hierarchy between classes, but that Prop 8 created a carve-out, I believe that this decision did indeed represent a situation where sexual orientation was given higher priority than religious conviction which should be equal under Unruh.

The court should have taken into account the attempts to accommodate and saw that the doctors used the least restrictive means to preserve their own religious liberty and to uphold the rights of the patient.

You state, "Professional ethics, philosophical ethics, and theological ethics all agree that it is ethically wrong for doctors to accept or reject patients solely because of the kinds of persons they are in race, ethnicity, nationality, economic class, social standing, religion, philosophical perspective, political commitment, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth."

I am concerned about the idea that all theological ethics are the same and correspond fully with professional and philosophical ethics. They are separate and distinct ideas, and while something may be required by the rules of professional ethics, it may not comport with theological ethics.

Further, the Benitez situation was not the rejection of the patient herself, but the rejection of a certain procedure. The rights of liberty of conscience cannot be ignored, and theology cannot be interpreted from only one perspective.

I am increasingly concerned about the blurring of these lines.

Michael

I agree that if "the Benetiz situation was not [about] the rejection of the patient herself, but the rejection of a certain procedure," the position of the doctors would been all but unassailable from the point of view of ethics and, I hazard a guess, from a legal point of view as well.

This is because the Unruh Act protects people, not procedures.

Rov v. Wade, way back in 1973, makes it clear that no MD can be forced to perform an abortion contrary to his or her profesional judgment. I should think that this would be a signficant precedent that would be pertinenet to other procedures.

But beginning with the first paragraph and onward, it seems to me that the case is indeed talking about people, not procedures, and that this is why the position of the MDs did not carry the day.

IN California, one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, race, sexual orientation and so forth.

If people think this is an infringement of religous liberty, they have every concepual right to objedt to the Court's determination.

And there have been people who have stoutly defended on religious grounds their right to discriminate on the basis of race. But the Court won't even let people make that kind of defense and I don't think it should.

Maybe people don't think that sexual orientations are grounded in part in biological givens. But the evidence for this is stronger than it is for racial differences.

Thank you!

Dave

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You mention that "But beginning with the first paragraph and onward, it seems to me that the case is indeed talking about people, not procedures, and that this is why the position of the MDs did not carry the day."

Let me throw a monkey wrench into this. Since there is no appeal to judicial notice available regarding the nature of sexual orientation, whether nature or nurture or how they happen to feel that morning, we are still left to look at the individual facts of this scenario.

In this situation, let's say the doctors made the honest argument early and they honestly decided to deny treatment, not based on the orientation of the woman, but because they were concerned about performing a procedure that would bring a third-party (the child) into what they felt was an objectionable environment. Now you not only have the interests of the woman at heart, but also the interests of the child. Depending on your view of human life, the child is either the property of the woman, or an independent being at the point of insemination.

Now, as you mention above, pursuant to Roe v. Wade, no doctor can be forced to provide an abortion. But what about the corresponding right to refuse to create a new life? I would argue by analogy that Roe would protect this right as well.

The only argument to the contrary would be that doctors cannot selectively refuse to provide abortions, but then this runs into issues involving "the life of the mother" "incest" etc.

What if a psychiatric evaluation was required in advance, and the psychiatrist refused to recommend the insemination based on the less than ideal home circumstances? What about placement of adopted children into homes?

The fundamental individual rights of the physicians cannot be completely ignored.

Michael

It is my hunch that the lawyers for the doctors could have successfully defended them along the lines you suggest.

I see two advantages to your approach. One of these is that the Unruh Civil Rights Act does not protect procedures, only people, for obvious reasons.

The other is that it would be easy to show from official Roman Catholic literature that it condemns artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogate gestation--all three-and that therefore the MDs were making substantive claims.

As you say, they could have appealed to Roe v. Wade, and probably many other cases I don't know about, that establish that MDs cannot be compelled to do things that are contrary to their professional judgment.

You write: "The fundamental individual rights of the physicians cannot be completely ignored." You are precisely correct.

I would only add that at the far edges the law does curtail our religious freedom somewhat and that this is a good thing.

I don't think any court would allow an attorney to try to make the case that our religious freedom could justify child sacrifice, for example.

Our religious liberty is real and expansive, but it is neither total nor absolute.

That we are having this discussion suggests to me that the implictions of the Court's ruling in this case are not altogether obvious!

This is why I think it is better for us to help each other understand it than to denounce it as wholly evil, as do a number of the Christian groups on the Internet.

Many thanks!

Dave

I agree wholeheartedly that simply denouncing a decision as "evil" without really thinking through it is not a helpful process. There are too many people on all sides of these kinds of debates who try to win arguments by frightening people into a particular viewpoint. I think that was particularly true when it came to Proposition 8, and frankly, I was embarassed by some of what came out from church leaders in these areas.

They could correct me if I am wrong here, but apparently the thought was that it was better to get a "yes" vote right away and explain it later than to honestly discuss the issue beforehand. Perhaps a symposium such as was held on Benitez would have been helpful before the November 4 election. It could have been videotaped or otherwise recorded and posted online.

But it seemed with the Prop 8 debates that rather than attempt to form a cooperative approach to studying the issue, the groups alienated each other and distanced themselves. A third, neutral party, should have pulled them together for a discussion where everybody had an opportunity to express themselves. This would have been preferable to the adverse situation that developed where both sides claimed God's endorsement and as a result were locked and loaded.

With regard to your point about the far edges of religious liberty, i.e. we would not support child sacrifice, that really designates a far out line that is readily discernable. But what about the closer questions that arise when one's religious convictions create a mild or moderate inconvenience for another person? Where do we draw the line, or must it always be on a case-by-case basis?

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but if her doctors refused to treat her with IUI because of their religious objections, why would they treat her in any way for infertility? And wouldn't she be within her rights to ask for reimbursement of her expenses if they charged her and then refused to perform the procedure? (Maybe that's not the case, but if it were...)

Michael

I agree that child sacrifice is way, way out there. I mention it only to underline that we all agree that religious freedom is not absolute.

My own view is that the lawyers for the doctor(s) made a tactical mistake in bringing up the religious liberty and marital status angles in the first place.

The cleanest, easiest and truest defense might have been that, for a variety of personal and profesional reasons she need not disclose, Benitez's doctor had long limited her practice to infertility therapies that do not include artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogate gestation.

I think the trial court might have then allowed the lawyers to prevent evidence that:

(1) Doctors are free to limit their pracitices any way they want, providing they do so in a nondiscrimatory way;

(2) This doctor had long limited her practice along these lines without regard to the sexual orientations of her patients, as evidenced by the fact she did the best she could for Benitez for the better part of a year;

(3) She had informed Benetiz of this limitation in her practice at the very outset of their therapeutic relationship,

(4) As promised she referred Benitez to another doctor when the next step in her therapy was IUI; and that

(5) The clinic as a whole did everything it could, including taking care of her additional expenses, to take good care of Benitez.

The defense lawyers need never have brought up the whole idea of religious liberty or Benitez's marital status!

I wholly share your view about there being no "middle ground" in the Prop 8 debate. I see it as a problem that has deep philosphical roots.

By definition "postmodernism" is not one thing; however, it is true that some forms of it hold that those in different cultural groups share no moral common ground. Instead, our cultural, religious, ethical differences go "all the way down," like wells that never tap into the same moral substance.

One well goes down to ethical oil and the other goes down to ethical water and they never successfully mix.

I think this form of postmodernism is false and dangerous and this is why I contest every time I get a chance.

Thanks again!

Dave

Carrol

You are not showing ignorance but appropriate insight and concern.

I know of no evidence that Benitez was harmed in any significant medical way and all parties seem to agree.

The clinic went so far as to cover Benitez's costs at another facility because they knew that her insurance company would only reimburse them.

I do not know what more the doctors or the clinic could have done for Benitez than they did. As far as I can tell from reading the material from the Courts, neither does any one else.

This is what makes this case so unnecesssary.

The problem, as I see it, is that instead of defending Benetiz's doctor(s) on the grounds that she accepted as legally binding the Unruh Civil Rights Acts, and that in fact she did not violate it, the MD's lawyer(s)tried to make the case that our religous liberty rights did not require the MDs to obey it with respect to sexual orientation.

Why they did this I don't know. I wonder if they thought that the first court would agree and "throw the case out of court," and that this would prevent them the costs and bother of going through a trial. I don't know.

If the lawyers knew that MDs were guilty, if indeed the MDs had violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the lawyers knew it, I think that they should have settled out of court and determined to do better in the future.

But the way the MD cared for Benetiz before she needed IUI even though the MD knew she is a lesbian, makes me think that the MD was not out of line.

According to my imaginative reconstruction, the strategy of the defense lawyers backfired in the trial cout and then, in order to keep a bad outcome from getting worse, they appealed to the Superior Court for a chance to make their defense and suceeded.

And then Benitez asked the Supreme Court to step in on the narrow question of law as to whether religous liberty is a possible defense for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation alone.

She succeeded, and in my view, rightly so, as a matter of legal theory. This says nothing about what actually happened, however.

I think the lawyers for the doctors can still attempt to defend them in Court for reasons other than their religious liberty, something I think they should have done in the first place.

Meanwhile, some Christians, who I think did not understand the case, became alarmed and denounced it in public in the severest possible terms.

Some of them even went from congregation to congregation scaring people into thinking that "the gays are overtaking us." This was neither true nor fair, in my view.

The last of it is the worst, I think. It is the responsiblity of those of us who are Christian leaders to understand the facts as accurately as we can and to prevent our people from experiencing false fear.

We live in frightening times. We don't need ministers and other Christian leaders making things seem even more frightening than they actually are!

Thank you, Carrol! Your sainthood shines brighter and brighter every day!

Dave

Here is existing California law regarding whether an employer can require a MD, RN and so forth to participate in an abortion procedure. The answer is "no." I should think that this legal principle would apply to other medical procedures as well, or at least that this case could be made.

This is from the Health and Safety Code:

"123420. (a) No employer or other person shall require a physician, a registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, or any other person employed or with staff privileges at a hospital, facility, or clinic to directly participate in the induction or performance of an abortion, if the employee or other person has filed a written statement with the employer or the hospital, facility, or clinic indicating a moral, ethical, or religious basis for refusal to participate in the abortion."

Last minute Bush administration's ruling may impact health providers, as reported by the NYTimes today:

Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

See the entire article in today's NYTimes online.

Meanwhile, some Christians, who I think did not understand the case, became alarmed and denounced it in public in the severest possible terms.

Some of them even went from congregation to congregation scaring people into thinking that "the gays are overtaking us." This was neither true nor fair, in my view.

Dave

Posted by: davidrlarson | 14 November 2008 at 11:20

I wonder if thats so.
http://www.nbc25online.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=221580

It will be interesting to see if this incident will recieve equal attention with Jared and Alex as they give to things like the sticks and stones artical ect.

Elaine

Thank you for bring this to our attention. When this proposal was circulated internally as a "trial balloon" last summer, the protest was so swift and intense that I thought it had been burst. Apparently not!

My immediate reaction, without double-checking, is that these requirements are not needed in states like California because we already have them in our laws.

Michael

Thank you for the link about some gay-rights advocates who allegedly made it difficult for Christians to participate in their weekly religious worship services.

Even if this paticuilar news account is not fully accurate, I think we can all agree that this sort of thing has probably taken place elsewhere in recent weeks.

I believe that all of us should codemn such tactics and that those of us who want to be supportive of gay and lesbian people should disapprove them the earliest, longest and strongest.

These tactics do not help; they actually make things worse, postponing still further the day when all God's children will be treated fairly without regard to their sexual orientations.

But even if such activities were effective--which they aren't--they would still be ethically unacceptable. This is because they treat others as we would not will to be treated ourselves.

[I deliberately use the word "would" rather than "like" for reasons that we need not explore here, except to note them in passing.]

Some favorably compare these activities with the demonstrations that Martin Luther King, Jr. and others led on behalf of civil rights in an earlier generation. But I think a careful study of what King wrote and did, and how he went about these things, will establish that are important differences.

I am not objecting to non-violent protests; however, I am persuaded that we cross the line of pragmatic effectiveness and moral acceptability when we deliberately deface property and/or intentionally harrass people, making these our goals in and of themselves.

Thanks again!

Dave

Thank you, particularly Dave and Michael, for this discussion of the important Benitez case.

I feel like I’ve had a ringside seat at an interchange between a theologian and a jurist who have plumbed the theories, strategies, and nuances of this unusual, pivotal case.

From my reading of the case and your fine discussion, I come away with several observations:

1. That all seven justices in California’s Supreme Court are convinced that one’s sexual orientation is of such importance to a citizen, and to that citizen’s freedom of life in our society, that a physician cannot legitimately discriminate against him or her because of that orientation. This case explicitly elevates sexual orientation to assume its place along with race, religion, nationality, etc., as personal traits against which discrimination is illegal. It’s not that one who abhors homosexuals (or heterosexuals, or that matter) need agree with a particular sexual orientation, any more than recognition of religion as a reason for nondiscrimination means that one agrees with Christianity--or Satanism!

2. That it really doesn’t matter in the Court’s eyes whether one’s sexual orientation is rooted in nature, nurture, or choice; it is a fundamental aspect of one’s being. Now, such matters as nature or choice likely did enter into the justices’ intuitions—if not explicit reasoning—that lead to their decision. This would also apply to matters such as whether the planet earth was desperate for more human births. But all things considered, the justices felt that the time had come to make a categorical move. For at least that reason the Supreme Court focused on categories of persons who cannot be discriminated against, and this court left it to lower courts to apply its ruling to contextual procedures.

3. That the law is no substitute for moral choice. For example, if a practitioner is racist or homophobic or is prejudiced against the disabled, he or she can quite easily shield underlying motives for a decision by labeling it “professional judgment.” But the law is now clear: sexual orientation cannot be the stated reason for denial of services, even if that reason is rooted in religion.

4. That the law is often a clumsy instrument for deciding nuanced cases. Appropriately, citizens may not legally discriminate against homosexual persons, but this court did allow Dr. Christine Brody to refer Benitez to another physician within the clinic. However, for unexplained reasons it would be discriminatory if a doctor referred Benitez to an outside doctor. The high court should have remained at the conceptual level, and allowed a lower court to apply its principle in a richly textured context that included such factors as physician conscience, future child wellbeing, non-emergency, patient wellbeing, referral availability, and so forth.

Again, thank you for a penetrating look at this landmark case in our journey toward a kinder, more accepting society.

Jim

Jim

Good points, one and all.

I, too, am perplexed why referring to another MD at a different group of MDs might not have been acceptable. I wonder if it might be because her health plan required her to visit the first clinic. But they paid for her treatment at the other one, I believe.

As you say, I think the Supreme Court wants to stay at the conceptual level and let the trial court deal with the "facts," with possible reversal by the appeals court.

Two things continue to be overlooked, in my view.

One of these is that decision protects heterosexuals from discrimination too. Sexual orientation either way--for the reasons you mention--cannot be the sole basis for deciding whether to treat.

Second, the increasing and strong evidence suggests that the biological contributors to sexual orientation are greater than they are to race. This is exactly opposite to what many people think!

Thanks, Jim. Thank you for your comment and for putting together the public discussion at Loma Linda that prompted all this!

Dave

David, your comment intrigued me, perhaps you can be more definitive?

"the increasing and strong evidence suggests that the biological contributors to sexual orientation are greater than they are to race. This is exactly opposite to what many people think."

I'm unsure as to your evidence, not that I doubt it, but would like more information.

Thanks.

Infertility treatments aim at making it possible for infertile couples to have children--that is, a couple who normally should be able to have children together, but some physical or perhaps psychological difficulty gets in the way of intercourse or fertilization.

A lesbian couple is not "infertile." They are seeking instead to do something that is not possible.

Infertility treatment aims at helping nature.

This procedure aims at getting around nature.

This is not discrimination. This is about the role of medicine. Is it to help bodies be healthy, and function normally, or to give you abilities you don't have?

This is why those who seek to equate Viagra and birth control are wrongheaded. Viagra and similar products help the body function normally. Birth control seeks to impair a normal bodily function.

To deny doctors a conscience, be it derived from religious principles or not, and to turn medicine from ensuring health to creating new social realities, are both wrong.

To say to doctors that they cannot abide by their religious faith if they wish to practice medicine is a violation of their first amendment rights--Congress is to make no law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. It isn't freedom if you aren't allowed to practice it in whatever job you find yourself.

"Viagra and similar products help the body function normally."

Would you mind defining "normal functions"? If an older man loses this function, is it not normal? Or, is it abnormal?

Most medications are given to thwart that purpose: lack of a "normal body" product such as in hypothyroidism, hypertension, eyeglasses when eyes lose their "normal function" and Viagra for the older man who "normally" loses bodily function.

Most doctors practice at either restoring normal body functions, protecting against further bodily deterioration, and thwarting the aging processes and more.

As an 84-yr.old senior, I do all I can to continue to operate with the "normal body functions." And I thank God and my good doctors who have made it possible to do so. The lifespan of humans has increased from approximately 45-50 at the turn of the 20th century, to more than 75 today.

Each of us has the choice to operate and function as best we can.

The position that "Infertility treatment aims at helping nature.

This procedure aims at getting around nature" is not altogether true. When the husband is sterile, the wife often gets artificially inseminated. Is this unnatural? Should it not be performed? Or, if the woman is unmarried or a lesbian, is it then only "unnatural"? Would you deny all infertility treaments as "unnatural"?

Yes, absolutely, medicine is helping you to have abilities you do not have. Artifical organs, artificial joints, artificial implants. Which one would you forego if they could not only extend life but make it much more functional?

Bill,

Acting as an arbiter that decides which couples can and which couples cannot reproduce puts a person into an ethically precarious situation. It seems as though consideration for this precarious situation could have escaped you so far.

Do you mean to suggest that a physician's conscience ought to be the factor that determines which couples can procreate and which couples cannot? Do you really mean to go there? That might prove to be a slender limb to climb out on.

Additionally, to say that Viagra helps with normal bodily functions but birth control impairs normal bodily functions begs the question. Should we consider continuous pregnancy normal bodily function, or would the solution to the problem of that normal bodily function be a Pauline program of abstinence? Then again, there IS that pesky Pauline injunction not to deprive one another...

Bill, you said:
"To say to doctors that they cannot abide by their religious faith if they wish to practice medicine is a violation of their first amendment rights--Congress is to make no law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. It isn't freedom if you aren't allowed to practice it in whatever job you find yourself."

That is wonderful! I will convert to a sect of Islam that requires my full body and face to be covered with black clothing, and then go employ myself as a stripper in Las Vegas. SURELY the constitution will guarantee my paycheck then!

No. There is no guarantee of freedom to NOT do your job, the job you are licensed by the state to do and are given certain privileges to do. A hospital would be well within it's rights to fire a doctor who refused to do the jobs they were asked to do, and a community should be able to shut down for false advertising a doctor who then refuses to do all the procedures a doctor does.

Reasonable attempts should be made to allow for freedom of conscience, but it is NOT a blank check to continue drawing a salary while refusing to work!

observer.

I do not believe a professional should be allowed to opt out of a legal procedure, even abortion, unless they refer to another doctor who can do the procedure in a reasonable amount of time. Freedom of conscience should not allow one to deprive a customer of a legal procedure they should be able to reasonably expect you, as a professional, to provide.

Then again, it appears that in this particular case the referral DID occur, and the patient was treated, so I do not think there should have been any case against the doctor. And again, it appears that this ruling only stated orientation is not a legal discrimination technique, there are plenty of other defense arguments that should have been used, such as the fact that the doctor did everything he could to get the patient treated as well as protect his conscience, and in fact, that did occur.

Elaine

My evidence comes from talking to people who specialize in this area, not from my own work.

The usual point is that the category of "race" is too imprecise and value-laden to be of use in taxonomies of homo sapiens. Best not to use it at all a research psychologist responded today when I asked her about it.

There is quite a bit of literature on "race and biology" at google books and google scholar and elsewhere that I have not read.

I notice that one of the articles in the most recent issue of "Spectrum" asserts that the category of "race" is more sociological than biological. This is the sort of thing we increasingly hear. I think the author has a reference or two, but I'm not sure and I don't have the journal with me at the moment.

Many thanks!

Dave

Brothers and Sisters!

Please read the relevant laws on the topics. One good place would be the California Health and Safety Code at www.california.gov.

Also, please read the ruling in Benitez.

NO MD CAN BE FORCED TO DO A PROCEDURE THAT IS CONTRARY TO HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THIS HAS BEEN THE LAW FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

Some on the religious right are raising much money and causing much heartache by claiming that these documents say what they don't.

Please reead them for yourselves.

Thank you!

Dave

Whether female infertility is a pathology or a normal variation is a continuingly interesting question about which people disagree. I think it is an illness--pathology--that deserves to treated.

Many thanks!

Dave

Posted by: davidrlarson | 25 November 2008 at 5:59

Dave,
If we were to accept your position, as one needing "treatment"
would the woman wanting to be impregnated be fine with whatever sperm the doctor came up with since it would be the medicine in this case?

If not, what about her "right" to recieve the sperm of her choice?

Michael

Perhaps the point is too detailed to be of help; nevertheless, I think that whether infertility is an illness and whether a woman should conceive are two different issues.

The distinction comes up with respect to medical insurance. Should insurance companies cover costs for infertility therapy or should they be allowed to refuse doing so on the grounds that infertility is not an "illness" but a "normal" variation.

To me it seems more correct for an insurance company to say that there are certain illnesses it doesn't cover than to say that infertility is not an illness.

But this is a different issue than the one we are exploring. I was just making an oblique comment about another debate. That probably confused things. Sorry!

Thanks!

Dave

To see an argument where Adventists are requesting liberty but are intollerant to others go to http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=81

Sometimes I wonder if they know what they are thinking. It is frightening!

Fred

Thank you for the link. I visited the web site and posted the following comment. I hope others visit it and comment too.

"Alan writes: 'In a free society, we must all endure the public expression of views we find offensive. This is a price we pay. But political life also requires civility.'

I wholeheartedly agree with this principle. Alan goes on to apply it to a television ad he finds offensive. I have not seen the ad and therefore I cannot comment on it of my own accord; however, if it is as Alan describes it, I also would find it offensive. Very much so.

Although I voted against Proposition 8, I have encouraged others who also did not to express their disappointment in inappropriate behavior.

This is so for at least two reasons: (1)It is is not effective, actually causing others to harden their hearts toward gay and lesbian people even more, as is evident in the negative feelings of some of the posts in this thread. (2) It is wrong. We all have a right to express our views and to seek to persuade others. But to try to win a debate by making life difficult for the opposition is not acceptable, particularly for Christians.

Having said that, I must also say that some of the comments about gay and lesbian people by people who supported Proposition 8 have been unfortunate and in some cases misleading and so hostile as to be immoral.

Some who oppose what the justices of the California Supreme Court said in the Benitez case have said things about it that are false.

Please keep in mind that this ruling protects straight people just as much as it does gay and lesbian people because it addresses the issue of sexual orientation as such, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

This should be good news to those who might think that homosexual doctors could legally refuse to treat them because they are heterosexuals. I have yet to hear someone who opposed Propostion 8 to make this clear.

My suggestion is that we all read the ruling ourselves, and other documewnts like them, so that with our own eyes we can see what they say. In cases like this it is not always wise to trust what others report.

Much more generally, one can detect the inaccurate and sometimes invidious addititudes of some who opposed Proposition 8 because they keep referring to “the gays” as though all homosexual people can be lumped together as having the same views and values. By no means did all gay and lesbian people oppose Proposition 8; indeed, quite a few much prefer the nomenclature of “dometic partnerships.”

Therefore, to keep speaking of “the gays” is as wrong as it is to speak of “the Jews” or “the Negroes” or “the Mexicans” without distinctions and qualifications.

I think it inappropriate of people who opposed equal rights for heterosexual and homosexual people–and did so vigorously–now to present themselves as for these equal rights but opposed “just to the word marriage.”

I also believe that part of the problem is that for millions of Californians who are Roman Catholic the word “marriage” is drenched in religious significance because it refers to one of the seven sacraments. Though I do not know this about Mormonism, perhaps the word “marriage” is filled with that kind of special meaning for it too.

Although I voted against Proposition 8, I think it might be unrealistic for people for whom this word has such rich religious meaning to approve of its use for relationships they do not condone.

This is why I think the best solution is to do what is done in many other parts of the world. This is to have a legal process that results in civil unions for whomever the state allows this and to reserve “marriage” for the various communities of faith to use as they see fit. This would solve many problems.

If this is not a mutually acceptable solution, I am confident that if we worked together we could find one that is. But if we all vigorously defend our own positions, without acknowledging anything of merit in the other’s point of view, we will continue to have the present discord. Does Northern Ireland come to mind?

Jesus called us to be peacemkers, not cultural warriors for either side. I think this is something that those of us who are Christians should take more seriously.

"Whether female infertility is a pathology or a normal variation is a continuingly interesting question about which people disagree. I think it is an illness--pathology--that deserves to treated."

Is erectile dysfunction an illness that also deserves to be treated? Do insurance companies agree that both are illnesses that deserve compensation for treatment?

An editorial appearing in the NYTimes today on California's Legal Tangle:

November 25, 2008
Editorial NYTimes
California’s Legal Tangle

The approval of Proposition 8 in California, a constitutional change designed to prohibit marriage between couples of the same sex, was not just a defeat for fairness. It raised serious legal questions about the validity of using the Election Day initiative process to obliterate an existing right for a targeted minority.

These deeper questions were largely lost during the expensive campaign by proponents of Proposition 8. Essentially, in their rush to enshrine bigotry in the State Constitution, they circumvented the procedure specified in that same document for making such a serious change. Now, the state’s top court, which has agreed to hear the legal challenge to Proposition 8, has the unpleasant duty of tossing out a voter-approved ballot measure.

The case turns on whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment, requiring only approval by a bare majority of voters, or a more far-reaching constitutional revision, requiring a two-step process: either a constitutional convention or a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature followed by voter ratification. The court, which has struck down several measures before, should not lightly overturn the will of the people. But it has not confronted a revision this far-reaching in terms of upsetting basic rights and the state’s constitutional structure.

The court has correctly determined that the equal protection clause prohibits governmental discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which extends the right of marriage to same-sex couples. But the issue goes well beyond gay rights. Allowing Proposition 8 to stand would greatly limit the court’s ability to uphold the basic rights of all Californians and preclude the Legislature from performing its constitutional duty to weigh such monumental changes before they go to voters.

Treating Proposition 8 as a mere amendment would set a precedent that could allow the rights of any minority group to be diminished by a small majority. The measure passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

In California, sitting judges are subject to elections, and some supporters of Proposition 8 raise the threat of trying to oust justices who do not go along with trouncing on people’s rights and proper constitutional procedure. We trust the court will not be intimidated. The justices’ job is to protect minority rights and the State Constitution — even when, for the moment at least, it may not be the popular thing to do.

'A lesbian couple is not "infertile." They are seeking instead to do something that is not possible...
'This is not discrimination. This is about the role of medicine.'
Posted by: Bill Cork | 24 November 2008 at 9:07

Bill,

There are ethical issues associated with the use of modern reproductive technology: the clinician's role and its social implications.
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?i...

Still unsuccessful with IUI, the infertility clinic where Benitez was referred to finally resorted to IVF. California law, I just learned, exempts insurers from offering in vitro fertilization coverage but not other forms of infertility treatment as well as diagnosis. It seems that her insurer made an exception and paid their (Benitez and her partner's) IVF procedure as well.

I just posted this at http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=81.

"Suppose the California Supreme Court, or perhaps even the Supreme Court of the United States, strikes down Proposion 8?

What, then, should those who supported it do?

I suggest the following: Let the state have the word “marriage” as a purely civil matter and let it–through its leglislative, judicial and executive functions–determine who gets to get “married in this strictly secular sense.

Then let the communities of faith choose some other terms that refer to those unions they can bless as in harmony with God’s will.

I much prefer that it had been the other way around, that we would use “domestic partnership” for all unions the state approves and “marriage” for the religous unions. But this seems very unlikely at the moment.

So why not do the reverse? In many other countries there is a strict separation between “legal marriage” and “religious marriage.” Every couple gets married in the first sense, but not every one gets married in the second.

As a SDA minister who has done so in weddings, I think it inappropriate for me to say in the church sanctuary before the gathered congregation of believers in a worship service, “And now, by the power invested in me by the State of California, I pronounce you man and wife.”

I am not an official of the State of California. I am a Christian minister and I think we should not confuse the two.

More generally, there are ways we can work out mutually acceptable solutions even if this proposal isn’t the best.

My problem is that it sometimes feels to me that some on both sides enjoy being “cultural warriors” so much that they would rather fight than make peace.

It also seems to me that the less secure a person appears about his or her own heterosexual orientation, the more intensely he or she denounces those with homosexual ones.

This dynamic strikes me as a classic case in which people project upon others the disgust they feel toward themselves.

We have certainly seen in the lives of some religious and secular leaders. It may happen closer to home too.

Moral of the story: Be restrained in your denuciations of gay and lesbian people because if you are too strident you may tell others something about yourself that you don’t want them to know."

Dave said,
“It also seems to me that the less secure a person appears about his or her own heterosexual orientation, the more intensely he or she denounces those with homosexual ones.
This dynamic strikes me as a classic case in which people project upon others the disgust they feel toward themselves.”

Dave thank you for having the courage to say what I have long believed. I have so often heard anti-gay crusaders decrying the “decisions” of gay people; this is a concept I have never been able to understand. As a 53 year old heterosexual man I have never had to make a decision about my sexuality. As a child, and a typical little boy, girls were at first perceived as an irritation or nuisance that sometimes interfered with our boy games. This persisted until puberty when suddenly, “BAM” all changed and they became the object of total fascination.
I know that I could not “choose” to be a homosexual. If I were to find my self in a totally male community I would be celibate. This would not constitute a sacrifice on my part; I simply have no inclination towards the same sex. If sexual frustration reached a peak I would far rather practice masturbation than engage in any form of homosexual activity. This “decision” would not be because of my righteous nature but simply because of what I am!
I can only believe that homosexuals had as little “choice” as to their sexual orientation as I had in mine. How can one then claim that my orientation, being no more my decision than an accident of birth is righteous when another’s, equally an accident of birth is evil? This is so clear to me that I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see it, and so I am force to conclude that those who do not understand must be struggling with their own “choice” of sexual orientation.

Courtenay

Thank you for your reflections about sexual orientation. I suspect that many--both straight and gay or lesbian--identify with what you say.

I've long wondered what it is about this subject that makes some people--especially some men--so very angry. No topic we ever discuss in my classes upsets some more than this one. This is not on the part of everyone, of course. But it is clearly so of some.

As you say, it appears that gay and lesbian people neither threaten nor tempt straight people who are secure in their own sexual orientations.

Thanks again!

Dave

Thank you, Courtenay! You have spoken well. And there have actually been studies to support what you have said. Those who are insecure about their sexual identity are often the most vocal in condemning homosexuality.

I had a boss once who would make loud and disparaging remarks about gays - and even would refuse to be served by a waiter at a restaurant if he thought the man might be gay. I took him aside and showed him the studies and said, "I know you are not gay, but most educated folks have seen these studies and will make an assumption about you." Needless to say, he stopped publicly condemning gays.

David:

I appreciate you last post. It offers several excellent suggestions on how to best resolve the current dilemma surrounding the passage of Proposition 8.
However you keep repeating the old Freudian bromide, promulgated by the gay and lesbian communities: that the aversion by “straights” is simply because they have a fear of a latent tendency toward homosexuality themselves!
This may be true in isolated cares but for one who has spent his life time in health care delivery, I suggest you are overlooking a major factor.
Just another story to put the issue in proper perspective: I was a medic attached to the 40th infantry Division. We recaptured; Luzon, Panay, and Los Negroes, Philippines Islands. Each combat tour was followed by a rest period of several weeks, usually just outside a major city. Of course, within days if not hours, brothels were established within walking distance of each regiment.

Instead of wounded, we now began to treat venereal disease. I had tree functions:
1. Take a history of each new patient. The history included a description of the contact. Questions like: Male or Female; height, weight, age, breast size; auxiliary and pubic hair. (I would then give the information to the Military Police to attempt to local the contact and then bring them in for “treatment” also.
2. It was late in the war, so we had penicillin. It was in aqueous form, so four “shots” a day was the treatment for gonorrhea and syphilis usually 5-7 days. We had an average of 30 active patients a day. I administered the shots.
3. Our unit was assigned to accompany the M.P.’s on their “raids” of the “houses”. In some instances, the “net’ would included gay prostitutes.
Examination of these “men” would reveal oral cavities from which we could culture 4-8 virulent bacteria: rectal cavities also ravished with disease and abuse.

4. I was a young 19-20 year old. I found it disgusting. However, our team leaders was a middle aged regular army medic. One day, I found him retching . I asked what is the matter? He replied. I just examined one with a large open chancre . I said you have seen them before! He said, yes but last night I had an encounter with that one!”
David just for its worth, please don’t judge or speculate on why people have an aversion for any form of illicit or unnatural sexual activity. Believe me, some is very nasty indeed.
Much later in my career, I was the second in charge of a large medical complex that included a teaching hospital and two V.A. hospitals with a total of over 1000 beds. With the onset of the AIDS epidemic, our infectious disease unit grew exponentially and with it a growing list of disgusting encounters. At the height of the epidemic we had one or more deaths a day from AIDS associated causes.
I hope you find a solution to the problem vexing California and the nation. But please don’t judge the motives of activists. Self-righteous, maybe, doubtful of their own sexuality possibly, seasoned health care providers likely.
Tom

That's hilarious Donna.

Roger Ebert raises a similar point in his review of the new film about Harvey Milk.

His most fateful relationship was with Dan White, a seemingly straight member of the Board of Supervisors, a Catholic who said homosexuality was a sin and campaigned with his wife, kids and the American flag. An awkward alliance formed between Milk and White, who was probably gay and used their areas of political agreement as a beard. "I think he's one of us," Milk confided. The only gay supervisor, Milk was the only supervisor invited to the baptism of White's new baby. White was an alcoholic who all but revealed his sexuality to Milk during a drunken tirade, became unbalanced, resigned his position and on Nov. 27, 1978, walked into City Hall and assassinated Milk and Mayor George Moscone.

"Milk" tells Harvey Milk's story as one of a transformed life, a victory for individual freedom over state persecution, and a political and social cause. There is a remarkable shot near the end, showing a candlelight march reaching as far as the eyes can see. This is actual footage. It is emotionally devastating. And it comes as the result of one man's decisions in life.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081124/REVIE...

Tom in your last post you say that during the height of the AIDS epidemic you had one or more deaths a day form AIDS associated causes. I am a South African, living in South Africa and we are right now living in a devastating HIV/AIDS pandemic. It is estimated that between 5 and 6 million South African’s are infected with HIV and research shows that 29% of women attending state anti-natal clinics are infected with HIV.

In southern Africa AIDS is a heterosexual disease. The problem therefore is not homosexuality but infidelity. Recognising this surely we should be promoting monogamy and what better way of achieving this than through marriage. I recognise that marriage dose not guarantee monogamy but as a happily married man, married to the same wife for more than 28 years, I am convinced that marriage does improve the probability of monogamy. I am convinced that this holds equally true for gay marriage.

As a health care professional, committed to promoting the health of all, surely you should do all in your power to promote monogamy, and what better way is there than through promoting the possibility of a loving, mutually monogamous marriage relationship, irrespective of the sexual orientation of the marriage partners.

Dave, Courtenay, Donna, Alex...

Please, please... give us the research and reference, not some recent film, supporting your assertion about people's degree of in/security with regards to their own sexual identity in connection with the gay rights debate in this country. Share with us, if you may, the investigator's presuppositions and methodology. Thanks!

Joselito

Thanks for the inquiry!

I'm not talking about "the gay rights debate." All kinds of healthy people do and should engage in these exchanges.

I'm talking about the excessive, obsessive and down-right dangerous hostility some straight men exhibit toward gay ones. As we all know, this too often erupts in lethal violence.

But a step or two back from this are the verbally abusive terms with which many Christians refer to gay and straight people.

Comments at www.religiousliberty.info are what prompted my remarks. I think those who read the posts before mine on that thread might understand why.

I've offered my own hunch as to what is going on; however, I'm happy--eager, actually--to hear what others think.

However we account for it, we are dealing with a genuine and dangerous psychopathology.

Many thanks!

Dave

Joselito

Please go and read my post again, you seem to have missed the point.

I made no claims to having any evidence or references regarding people’s degree of insecurity about their sexual orientation and their opposition to gays. I merely observed that as it is impossible for me to choose my sexual orientation I am inclined to believe the same is true for gay people.

If on the other hand you are interested in the scope of the HIV/AIDS pandemic ravaging my country, and the fact that in southern Africa this is a hetero-sexual disease, as mentioned in my post to Tom, then I am able to provide you with a vast amount of empirical research.

Courtenay

Dave

Thanks for the clarification. The concept of "transference" is an often misused term or concept--in some instances much abused bilaterally.

Courtenay

I merely wanted to demonstrate that the issue of homosexually has a lot of baggage of free lance fornication associated with it. A lot of the disease that has now spread in some communities to the heterosexual community. As a high level health professional administrator, I had been very pro-active all phases of the healing process: assignment of space and equipment, allocation of funds, recruitment of clinicians, recruitment of research scientists devoted to the study of the disease, the development of half way houses, prevention education. It is now a heterosexual disease in some nitches in the U.S as well, but under much better control that 20 years ago.

The life style is still much the same.

I like Dave's suggestion of resolving the Prop. 8 issue.

Tom

Tom

Thanks! I meant to reply to your earlier comment that I did not have attitudes like yours in mind because I know that over the years you have helped many without regard to sexual orientation and that you have suffered some from each. There are good and bad in each group. Also, your most recent WWII story is amazing!

Dave

If the principal of transference is valid then it would manifest in many different heated issues.
EGW, the IJ ect. Does that mean that one who is very anti EGW is really actually for her but just cant be seen to admit it?

Sometimes a dog is just a dog.

and sometimes people are kicking against the pricks.

Great thoughts and contributions all~! Thanks.

Just one more story to fill out the complexity of the homosexual dilemma.

At times we would release a patient with active HIV with counsel as to comtinued treatment and prophylaxis. One patient on discharge, told the discharge nurse. "I know I got this @#%&* disease from some @#%^& fellow. Well, I am going out there and see how many @#%^&* fellows, I can infect before I die!"

The pain, the anger, the frustration, the hurt, the confusion of this issue extends beyond human understanding. Tom

David,

I have just finished reading your original article and all the comments which followed, and I have many questions, but right now I have time for only one comment connected with your 28 November 2008 at 4:09 posting. You state that you were reacting to the “religious bigotry” described by By Alan J. Reinach article you referenced with the following Internet link: www.religiousliberty.info .

I did read said article, and my question to you is: Are you sure it deals with religious bigotry? Could it rather be “anti-religious bigotry? Reinach did use the phrase “religious bigotry” in his title, as well as later on in his article, but he seems to describe in fact “anti-religious bigotry." Notice the following sentence:

“When I first saw the commercial, I was stunned. It was difficult to believe that such blatant anti-religious bigotry would be approved for broadcast by television stations that actually screen content.”

Perhaps it would help those who have not taken the trouble to click on the link you provided if I copied a portion of Reinach article here in order that the readers of this blog coul help us determine the actual nature of the bigotry the author was referring to:

*********
"Religious Bigotry Goes Mainstream in California Culture Wars

By Alan J. Reinach

The battle over Proposition 8 ended on a particularly offensive note on Election Day, when a group calling itself the Courage Campaign broadcast a commercial on about 30 stations across the state. The commercial has to be seen to be believed.

It pictures two Mormon missionaries who invade the home of a lesbian couple to take their wedding bands and destroy their marriage license, tearing it up in their faces as the women protest that they have rights. The Mormons reply, “Not if we can help it.”

Earlier, the missionaries had announced at the door that they were there to take away the couple’s rights. As they leave the home, one of the pair asks, “What can we ban next?”

When I first saw the commercial, I was stunned. It was difficult to believe that such blatant anti-religious bigotry would be approved for broadcast by television stations that actually screen content.

Can you imagine if the people being ridiculed were Jewish or Muslim? Would a television station dare to air such commercials? Would the American people have tolerated them? As time has elapsed, I have been even more dismayed to see that some mainstream media even endorse the message of this ad.

The L.A. Times in an editorial lamented that such “hard-hitting” ads were run too late to do much good! And I watched the spokesman for the Courage Campaign, Rick Jacobs, interviewed on N.B.C. television on Sunday. He was treated with respect while segments of the commercial were aired, no hint that the commercial was offensive or out-of-order.

Make no mistake about it: this ad is mean-spirited and hateful. It is religious bigotry, and it is absolutely appalling that it was deemed acceptable to the L.A. Times, to N.B.C. News, and to the thirty television stations that chose to accept the commercials for broadcast. ...

*********

I have the suspicion that what Reinach was describing was in fact a caricature of Mormons intead of it being an accurate depiction of the way they deal with homosexuals. What do you think?

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

As in most tv political ads, Rick Jacobs' No on Prop 8 Courage Campaign commercial used fictitious characters. Who is framing the conversation in terms of the worst in their opponents?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpos...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/mormon-church-on-prop-8-w_b_14...

Reverse the situation: If all straight people were denied the possibility of legally recognized marriage, there would most assuredly be much more promiscuity.

When homosexual people have been denied the privilege of recognized civil marriage, promiscuity results. To focus on their promiscuity, to a large extent results from the impossibility of ever having legally recognized marriage rights and privileges.

When homosexual marriage becomes legal, everyone should applaud for those who choose monogamy, shouldn't they?

For those who proclaim celibacy as the only religiously viable option, is to deny those who are "different" the privileges that the majority of straights have always enjoyed. It changes nothing for heterosexuals to respect choices that differ from theirs and in no way threatens their own marriages.

THats way too simplistic Elaine

Homosexual promiscuity existed way before any talk of marraige as an option ever came up.
Also there is a tendancy in these threads to try paint homosexuality as monogomas people who are your average person next door.
While it is true that there are those exceptions, the mainstream is much more "Flaming" as many postmoderns would say.

"flaming
v.
Flaunting, effeminate traits."

It has become a fact of our national conciousness that male hairdressers, interior designers, fashionistas and wedding planners are beyond gay. The hundreds of thousands of participants of many large cities gay pride parades are far beyond the gay that is discribed by the average spectrum gay advocate.

Sorry Elaine

Promiscuity existed long before the issue of homosexual marraige was ever introduced. I still think Dave Larsen suggests a rational solution to the Prop. 8 impass.

Homosexuality exists, criminalization is no answer, ostracism is no answer, the approval of the church is no answer. We live in a civil society. Let us find a civil solution. When it comes to "rights" one can only appeal to the state not the church.

All else stands before the throne of God with only one Advocate and one accusor. We were commissioned as messagers not judges.

In the meantime, we are sent to bind up the broken hearted, even the walking wounded. Ours is a job of healing not accusation in that I stand with you 100 per cent. Tom

Tom, I agree that it is a civil rights issue. However, it has invaded the church, else why would we be discussing it?

Aren't Christians to be engaged in assuring everyone is guaranteed the rights for everyone, equally? Isn't that what we have been directed to do? When we criminalize, ostracize, or distance ourselves from others for any reason: race, sex, gender or handicaps, we lessen our own dignity. Giving others with whom we disagree, the rights and acess that we enjoy should not even be questioned.

I also agree with another writer who disliked the fact that the traditional marriage has become
regulated by both religious and civil laws. Because marriage is licensed by the state, it should be completely separated from religious marriages as it is in many countries: civil marriage, followed by religious rites if the participants wish; as it is certainly not required in any state, nor California. Religion should have nothing to do with the civil marriage license or requirements. This way, same sex marriage should be legal, and no religious body or clergy is being asked to perform such a ceremony. Which begs the question: why did the religious liberty department take on this civil law that was never written to affect them?

Elaine

A good question. In the army we were taught never anticipate--always wait for the command. I guess religious liberty took two giant steps before "Simon Says.". Tom

Are there any studies showing that homosexual promiscuity is engaged in more than heterosexual promiscuity? Are they not equal in God's eyes?
Is homosexual promiscuity worse than hetero? It seems that homosexual conduct of all kinds is far more often condemned. Any conclusions?

Conclusions

All is an abomination and certainly outside of the creation intent. Tom

"Abomination" is a term used biblically for many acts that today would not be considered so.

How much of our lives today is not within the
"creation intent"? It is good to have a standard by which to measure our acts and intentions, but using a 2,000 year-old guideline, if followed, would result in such major changes that it is almost impossible to conjecture. We have all had to adapt to the sinful world in which we live today with the results that are far from the ideal--but then we do not, nor have we ever lived in that picture perfect "ideal world," of which we know nothing and which is a fantasy created in our minds.

Jesus said, regarding adultery, "It was not always so, but for the hardness of your hearts..." which he recognized was not the ideal but an accomodation to the world then.

People who claim that bigotry and homophobia is what led to the passage of Prop. 8 are barking up the wrong tree. Martin Luther King would turn over in his grave if he knew how the civil rights movement he started to end racial discrimination has been hijacked by the militant gay rights activists. Fifty years ago African Americans were the victims of instiutionalized racism. Separate water fountains, white-only restaurants and other forms of dehumanizing segregation were rampant then. Gays do not face this type of discrimination today. The fact that black voters in California voted YES on prop. 8, 70%for it, demostrates just how out of step the claims that sexual orientation should be equal to race in matters of discrimination. To equate same sex marriage as the same as trying to overturn laws that once barred interracial marriage is phony. Moses was married to an Ethipian (black) woman,so there is not one biblical leg to stand on to discriminate against interracial marriage. That is why Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status 25 years ago because it banned interracial dating and marriage. Contrary to the spin the gay thology crowd would like you to believe, there is strong biblical denunciation of homosexual acts in both the Old and New Testiments. So the bottom line that led religious liberty leaders like Alan Reinach to support Prop.8 was that the push for same sex marriage was part of a broader agenda that would eventually threaten religious liberty of those who choose to obey God rather than man. Do you see now the implications to church institutions that would refuse to go along with a public policy that put sexual orientatiopn on par with race in matters dealing with discrimination? Don't be so singularly focused on the religious right and Sunday laws that you are blind sided by the anti-religious secular left. Satan works both sides of the p[olitical fence to, if possible deceive the very elect.
think about it.

Elaine

"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

You asked only about two. False Witness is another. Tom

Those who have watched the CourageCampaign No on Prop 8 video ad should also see the following titled: Catholics appalled at anti-Mormon slur

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU

"Do you see now the implications to church institutions that would refuse to go along with a public policy that put sexual orientation on par with race?"

Yes, but that does not impact the church or its members, only the Adventist institutions that accept government funding. They have been willing and eager to accept all the funding that the government gave them, but now they fear that there may be some conditions. So be it. Anyone that still believes there is a free lunch shouldn't be in business. The schools and hospitals that carry the SDA name are not exempt from government ruling, nor should they be. Until they are willing to forego any government aid, they cannot protest the same rules that applies to all government funded operations. They cannot complain or cry freedom of religion when they are not free of government monies.

Nic

If I correctly understand your point, I agree with it.

I have not seen the commercial Alan Reinach describes, so I can't speak about it out of my own knowledge.

But if it is anything like his description of it--and I have no reason to doubt that it is--I consider it to be a horrible distortion of what Mormonism is all about.

Let us remember that LDSs have suffered more than their share of religious bigotry. Mitt Romney, a very accomplished businessman and politician, might well have been the Republican candidate instead of John McCain had it not been for the evangelical Christians who expressed doubts about him because of his religious convictions.

As I've said before, I find it totally unacceptable for people--gay or straight--to express their frustratation about how things turned out in the last election in California by defacing property and/or harrrassing people.

I think we those of us who opposed Prop 8 and those of us who supported it should now be respectfully watchful as it works its way through the Courts.

There will be plenty of time to figure out what to do next once this process has run its course.

Meanwhile, perhaps all of us would do well to try to understand how this issue looks and feels from the other side.

It will be impossible for us to be peacemakers if we don't even give this a try. And peacemakes we must all try to be.

Thank you!

Dave

David,

Thanks for answering my previous question! Today, I have another question for you. On 18 November 2008 at 2:45, you posted the following quotation from the Health and Safety Code:

*********
"123420. (a) No employer or other person shall require a physician, a registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, or any other person employed or with staff privileges at a hospital, facility, or clinic to directly participate in the induction or performance of an abortion, if the employee or other person has filed a written statement with the employer or the hospital, facility, or clinic indicating a moral, ethical, or religious basis for refusal to participate in the abortion."

*********
My question is: If a physician is free from the obligation to participate in the destruction of human life [abortion], why is he/she not exempted as well from taking part in the creation of new life [Artificial insemination]?

Why is it that in one case the religious liberty of the health care giver is legally protected while in the second case it is violated?

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic

You have hit the nail exactly on the head!

In California, as in all other states in this nation, no MD can be required to do do any procedure that is contrary to his or her best professional judgment, however this is formed.

The Health and Safety Code does not list all the possible interventions about which such judgments are necessary, for obvious reasons. But the legal principle established with respect to abortion--which is already in Roe v. Wade in 1973 at the United States Supreme Court--can easily be argued to apply to all other cases.

I can't imagine that such an argument would fail. This is an extrapolation on my part from long established statutory and case law regarding abortion to other issues; however, I think it unassailable.

This is why I have objected to depictions of the Benitez case as one that threatens the religious liberty of MDs. It doesn't.

It protects homosexual and heterosexuals alike against unfair discrimnination on the part of MDs. In my judgment it should.

HAVE YOU HEARD ANYONE WHO OBJECTS TO WHAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAYS IN THE BENITEZ CASE EXPLIAN THAT IT PROTECTS HOMOSEXUALS AND HETEROSEXUALS ALIKE? I HAVEN'T. WHY?

The distinction between "persons" and "procedures" makes all the difference.

If a doctor says "I treat nothing but common colds," the state of California says, "Fine. Thank you very much." It says the same thing if the doctor says "I do artificial insemination but not in vitro fertilization and surrogate gestation" and so forth.

What an MD cannot do is to say, "I do intrauterine inseminiations for white women but not for black ones. Neither can the MD say, "I do this for heterosexual women but not for homosexual ones."

In the case at hand, there is a factual dispute as to why the clinic referred Benitez to another clinic and [I think] paid for her expenses there.

Was it because she is a homosexual person pure and simple? Or was it because she is not legally married, a standard that would apply to heterosexual and homosexual women alike? Or did she hear one thing from one person at the clinic and something else from another [something that wouldn't surprise me]?

But "this questIion of fact" has never been put before a jury because the MDs claimed religious liberty in the first court. Why they did this is uncertain to me.

My guess is that they were trying to avoid the expenses and bother of a trial. This is pure speculation on my part, however. Pure speculation.

As the Justices in the Benitez case allow, the quesiton of marital status is an interesting and unresolved issue that needs to be considered.

I think the Court all but begged the Benitez lawyers, or someone else, to present a case that poses the question of marital status so that the judicial system can consider it.

I do not believe that the Court already has an answer to this question for which it wants a case.

I believe that the Court sees this as an interesting and important question in legal theory that it would like the judicial system to explore in detail and with exactitude, hearing well reasoned arguments from all sides of the debate and so forth.

If Prop 8 had not passed, things would have become more complicated because then homosexual and heterosexual women could both be legally married in the eyes of the law.

This would have put MDs in the awkward position of saying "yes" to legally married heterosexual women but "no" to legally married homosexual ones.

Although I voted against it, I can see why someone would have voted for Prop 8 in part to prevent this issue from coming up.

But to scare people into thinking that what the California Supreme Court said in the Benitez case already poses a threat to the religious liberty of MDs by requiring them to do certain procedures is not accurate.

In effect to proclaim, "The gays are coming and they are going to take over everything!" is neither correct nor helpful.

The more we talk in these unhelpful ways, the more I think we say things about ourselves that are not flattering.

Thanks, Nic!

Dave

Dave

I get the impression (my guess) if Benitez and her primary physicians had their way, they would have settled out of court, remained friends, and not use the religious freedom defence but for their lawyers. Why some lawyers want special cases resolved in court is a question only lawyers can answer. My wife and I happen to have encountered some problems re-adjusting our immigration status in this country. Why has it taken us so lo-ong? What amazes me is our lawyer's latest advice urging us to join a class action (at no additional expense on our part, she assured us) involving a possible case of discrimination in relation to our petition that her professional colleagues have prepared and wanted clarified by the courts.

David,

Thank you for your quick 01 December 2008 at 2:20 response to my question, which moves me to ask you another question connected with some of the comments that were made on this blog. There have been several references in this blog to some of the fundamental rights certain groups are entitled to with which you seem to agree, such as the right to marry, the right to be protected from discrimination, and the right to abortion.

My question to you is: If the right to destroy human life [abortion] is fundamental, should not the right to life be more fundamental? Why on earth do we grant to one group of people [those who were born] the right to take the life of another group of human beings [the unborn]? If the right to marry is a sacred cow, how come we sacrifice the right to life on the altar of convenience? Should not the right to life be more sacred and more fundamental than any other right?

Should not the right to life of all human beings, regardless of their size and place of residence, be protected and considered as fundamental? Do you think that the Author of life would agree that the right to shed the blood of the most innocent members of humanity is a fundamental right? Do you think that Jesus would exclude the unborn form those he described as the “least” in Matthew 25 and with whom he identified himself?

David, you have devoted your entire life to morality and ethics. Please, share with us the heavenly ethics which is sorely needed for this time of moral confusion!

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic,

We may be getting way off topic. The issue here is not specifically about abortion or marriage, though there may be a connection. This thread is about the right to assisted reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, regardless of sexual orientation; and the right to raise children genetically related to at least one parent.

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?i...

Thank you, Joselito!

Joselito,

On 01 December 2008 at 5:32 you reminded me of the need to get back to the main subject. My first question to you is: Was your 30 November 2008 at 11:45 on the specific subject of this blog? Should someone have called your attention that “this thread is about the right to assisted reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, regardless of sexual orientation”? Nobody did ask you to return to the main subject, but you were quick to call my attention for slightly digressing from the main topic, and you were thanked for this!

I have other questions for you: David wrote the following comments towards the end of his article dealing with the Guadalupe case:

*********
"Theological ethics is even clearer. It insists that we are all created in the image of God, that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, that God seeks reconciliation—at-one-ment—with all of us, that the gospel includes breaking down the offensive walls of discrimination we build between all of us, that in the church—the body of Christ—we relate to each other and to those outside of the community of faith as mutually interdependent equals, that God’s plan for all of us includes everlasting joy if only we will accept it, and that in Jesus Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor master, male nor female, and by legitimate extension, neither straight nor gay. How, then, dare we even think of turning patients away solely and wholly because of their sexual orientations?"

*********
Before I frame my questions to you, I want to highlight the following ideas stated by David: A. “We are all created in the image of God.” B. “The gospel includes breaking down the offensive walls of discrimination.” C. “In Jesus Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor master, male nor female, and by legitimate extension, neither straight nor gay.” And D. “How, then, dare we even think of turning patients away solely and wholly because of their sexual orientations?”

Now my questions to you: A. If God created us all in his image, doesn’t this include the unborn? B. If the Gospel does include the elimination of discrimination against certain groups of human beings, how about our discrimination against the unborn? C. If, according to Saint Paul, there is “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor master, male nor female, and by legitimate extension, neither straight nor gay;” how about, by “legitimate extension,” adding “neither born nor unborn?” and D. Do you think that “turning patients away solely and wholly because of their sexual orientations?” is worse than dismembering an unborn baby until the innocent human creature becomes pieces of bloody meat on a tray?

How come we are so obsessed with the rights of homosexuals while setting aside something so fundamental like the right to life? Don’t tell me I am getting off the subject! What I am trying to do is to frame the issue of gays' rights in its proper moral perspective. Unless we do this, we will repeat the mistake of those theologians who in times past were extremely concerned about how many angels could fit in the head of a pin, while at the same time they were burning heretics at the stake.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Hi Nic!

Thank you for reading my initial remarks at the Loma Linda discussion of the Benitez case that Jim Walters and Romana Hymen convened.

There is no greater compliment than to be taken seriously, even if this means serious disagreement!

As I think you know, my own view is that from a Christian ethical point of view there is an exceedingly strong ethical presumption against abortion.

When I say "presumption" I mean that the one who would justify an abortion in any specific case bears the moral burden of proof, not the the way around.

When I say "exceedingly strong" I mean that, even though I hold that this presumption can be rebutted in specific cases so as to provide room for exceptions, it is very difficult to do so.

In other words, the moral burden of proof against abortion from a Christian point of view is very heavy.

I suspect that we differ in at least three respects: (1) I do allow for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, lethal fetal malformations, etc. while also noting that these constitute no more than 2-3% of the cases; (2)I take implantation rather than fertilization to be the "initial point" of true "potentiality," everything before that remaining in the realm of "possibility;" (3) I hold that the case against any specific abortion increases as gestation progresses rather than it being an ethical "flat line."

But I doubt that these are the biggest differences between us. One of these concerns social policy.

Correctly or incorrectly, I think that to enforce either your or my view of abortion with the power of law will not work at this time. In fact, I think trying to do so will only make things worse.

All the evidence I have seen suggests that per capita abortions are the same worldwide no matter how restrictive or permissive the abortion laws are.

There does seem to be some difference, however. This is that where abortion laws are restrictive the per capita morbity and mortality rates for women are higher. I think that this will long be the case.

Another big difference might be that I am very reluctant to interfere with a woman's own ethical and theological thoughts and prayers about whether she should have an abortion.

I have no hesitancy calling into question the use of abortion as routine contraception; however, I think almost every one agrees that this is medically as well as ethically dangerous.

I think the most effective thing people who oppose abortion can do is to educate people--visually, if at all possible--about the wonders of the entire process of human gestation. If anything is miraculous, this certainly is!

Just letting people see what a 13 week old fetus looks like--in light of everything that happens before and after--will be very helpful. No "moral lessons" need be drawn. Just let people see what is going on. They will connect the ethical dots without anyone asking them to.

Something along the lines of the recent "human body" exhibitions for the whole of human gestation is what I have in mind.

Many thanks! I hope that this is a "good enough" day for both of us!!

Dave

Nic,

My previous post was a reminder to me ("We...) as well! Just wondering if you, Dave... others can think of any reason why physicians, such as Benitez's primary careproviders, may justifiably object to the use of medically assisted reproductive technology on religious grounds. The Hastings Center I cited above, for example, submits the following:

"Ethical issues arise around the creation, selection, and disposal of embryos, as well as around cost, coverage, access, and resource allocation.
"Assisted reproductive technologies can also require the use of sperm, eggs, or wombs from third parties who are not expected to play a role in raising the child.
"Ethical issues around third-party assisted reproduction are complex and involve the selection and sale of reproductive materials and services, regulation, and the rights and responsibilities of collaborators."

"I am very reluctant to interfere with a woman's own ethical and theological thoughts and prayers about whether she should have an abortion."

No one has the right to be someone else's conscience; that is taking away a God-given privilege on which angels should fear to tread.

Does anyone wish to stand in the judgment for anyone's life? We are responsible to God ONLY for those actions that we can control, and no one, not even God has attempted to control humans--subverting the free will he has given us.

On the abortion front: Even the ardent pro-lifers have come to realize that their tactics have backfired. Some of most prominent ones have said: "There's got to be a way we can take some of these hot-button issues and cooperate, rather than simply keep fighting" (Joel Hunter, board member of the National Association of Evangelicals).

Since women living in poverty have by far the highest abortion rate, Hunter now talks of supporting liberal social programs, such as pre- and postnatal care and affordable child care, which could convince more pregnant women to give birth.

Social programs do affect the abortion rate. Under President Bill Clinton, who was pro-choice, the abortion rate fell about 50 percent faster than it did under the pro-live incumbent, George W. Bush. By contrast, all the energy pro-
lifers have devoted to restrictions--such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act--has not stopped {"even a single abortion." No one is demanding that pro-lifers give up "their belief that abortion is murder" (USATODAY). But four out of five Americans want abortion to remain legal in some or all circumstances, and after Colorado and South Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected anti-abortion initiatives in this last election, the pro-life movement faces a simple choice: Settle for reducing the number of abortions or bury your heads in the sand.

(Excerpted from "The Week" Dec. 5.)

David,

I read your comments posted on 02 December 2008 at 1:38 and I truly appreciate your sharing your views about the abortion issue. I agree with you that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is through education. My question is: Are you aware of any effort being done by the Adventist Church in this respect.

Some years ago, I send a donation to the University Church and designated it as a pro-life offering. The money was returned with a note saying that the church did not have any pro-life program. I then sent the donation directly to the General Conference, and the money was returned with a similar explanation. I tried the same with the Riverside Seventh-day Baptist Church, and the pastor church treasurer told me he had no idea what to do with the money.

You state that you do “allow for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, lethal malformations” and so on. This probably means that your view reflects the official position of the Adventist Church which includes among the exceptions when the pregnant female is a minor, when the pregnancy interferes with the female’s school, and even when the unexpected pregnancy had a negative effect on the woman’s mental health.

You also believe that any legal action by the government would be counterproductive at this time, that it will not reduce the number of abortions worldwide, and that the number of women dying as a result of illegal abortion will tend to increase. Finally, you seem to believe that society has no right to interfere with women’s right to make their own decision regarding this matter. These are the main issues I would like to comment on.

A. Rape and Incest: When rape and incest take place, we usually have two victims, the violated female and the innocent unborn baby. I believe that taking the life of one of the innocent victims is a miscarriage of justice. In most cases, the innocent unborn baby is killed, and the rapist is free to repeat his crime.

B. Lethal Malformations: You stated that visual education is the most promising tool in reducing the number of abortions. I would like to ask you to consider the story, day by day, of a baby born with under-developed lungs who lived for three months. Pro-abortion individuals argue that such babies should be killed. Please, view this video and tell me whether you believe that this beautiful baby should have been killed. Here is the Internet link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0&NR=1 .

I do not see the fairness of arguing that, because a human being is doomed to die, that this represents a valid moral reason to take said human being's life. The hospitals and nursing homes are full of terminal cases, yet the law protects their right to life. Killing them is a punishable crime! How come we remove this protection from the unborn?

C. The Pregnant Minor: My view is that whoever impregnates a minor is the one who should be punished instead of the innocent unborn baby.

D. Mental Health Cases: If we justify the killing of the unborn when the pregnancy has a negative effect on the pregnant female, we are opening the door for the killing of all unwanted babies. Have you ever seen a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy who is free from temporary mental depression? This is precisely why we have abortionists who openly advertize late-term abortions. All a woman need to do is to convince said abortion provider that she is mentally depressed, which is a rather easy task, since the abortionists is financially rewarded for providing such service.

E. Enforcement is Counterproductive: Anytime the government attempts to control criminal activity, the same argument is made that it would be counterproductive. Take the case of our war against drugs. Many have argued that our drug policy represents a dismal failure. Would you suggest that we should legalize the use of marijuana, opium, and crack cocaine?

F. The Morbidity Rate: I agree that, if we were to outlaw abortions, the number of women dying from illegal abortions would increase. What we need to do is to weigh the limited number of potential deaths resulting from the performance of illegal abortion versus the over a million a year deaths of innocent human being as a result of the legalization of abortion.

Which of these opposing policies results in a greater number of deaths? Do you think that the number of deaths connected with illegal abortions will approach the number of deaths resulting from the legalization of abortions? To even the scale, you would have to assume that every illegal abortion will result in the death of the pregnant woman!

G. The Woman Should Decide: Contrary to your suggestion, I would respond that the pregnant woman facing an unwanted abortion is the least capable of choosing the best option for her own future welfare and the welfare of the unborn. A woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is usually mentally depressed and in no mental frame to make the right choice.

If she chooses to abort, in most cases, she will never completely forgive herself for taking the life of an innocent human being. Such an action will tend to adversely affect her mental health more than a temporary inconvenience, especially if she decides to give her baby for adoption. She will have made two things right: avoid the guilt associated with abortion, and she will have made an infertile couple very happy.

I have stated my case. I am not asking you to respond to my arguments, especially considering that your interest is probably in resuming the consideration of the specific issue you introduced with this blog. Of course, in the event you decide to respond to my comments, I will be delighted to continue the conversation centered on this side issue.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic!

Thanks for the YouTube link. I watched the video about Eliot and was deeply moved.

That Eliot's parents did so much him for so long and with such unpretentious faith is impressive. The word "impressive" is too secular, but perhaps you catch my meaning.

Having said that, I think it would have been just as honorable for Eliot's parents to have not traveled down this high-tech road and instead lavished comfort care on him until he died.

This probably would have been a matter of days, if that long, rather than months. Some might say that this would have been the better route because Eliot's outcome was certain and his parents extended and intensified his suffering.

These are very difficult questions that people must be free to answer as they find best, based on their reading of the medical evidence, their conversations with each other, and their meditation and prayer (if they are believers in God).

I think another beautiful video could have been made with Eliot's mother and father holding him in their arms and bathing him with their tears as he gently slipped away.

I should have thought that abortion would be medically and ethically unacceptable by the time the MDs knew for certain how Eliot was doing in his young mother's womb.

Elaine makes sense to me. Because we all want to reduce the number of abortions, let's deal with the circumstances that cause so many women justifiably to feel that they have no alternative.

This is the only strategy that works. And it does succeed.

Afterall, no woman looks forward with joy to having an abortion! She does so because we have given her few other options, if any at all.

I think you make your case on the other issues very well. I'm not certain what more I can say without repeating myself except to salute you for acting in harmony with your conscientious convictions.

Thank you!

Joselito

Thank you for the link to the "Hastings Center Report." The article strikes me as a good overview of the ethical issues surrounding "assisted procreation."

I prefer not say "aritificial reproduction!"

Dave

David,

Thanks for your comments dated 03 December 2008 at 3:09! Whether we save 50 million from a sure death or just one, it will be worth the effort!

Joselito,

Thanks for your response dated 02 December 2008 at 3:05! My previous comments directed at you were in reference to the following posting dated 30 November 2008 at 11:45:

*********
“Those who have watched the CourageCampaign No on Prop 8 video ad should also see the following titled: Catholics appalled at anti-Mormon slur. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU “

*********

Elaine,

I read your comments posted on 02 December 2008 at 4:53. You stated among other things the following: “No one has the right to be someone else's conscience.” My question to you is: Would you use the same argument if someone were to kill her own child in your presence after it was allowed to be born? If not, why not? What is the difference between a baby who was allowed to take its first breath and one who was waiting to be born? Why on earth dismembering a born baby is wrong, but doing so before the poor creature was allowed to see the light of day is acceptable in your view?

You argue that “not even God has attempted to control humans.” What would you do if you were to witness a woman cutting her own born baby to pieces with a butcher’s knife? Would you try to intervene? Would you call the police? Or would you simply say, “I have no right to interfere with that woman’s right to do whatever she wants with her own baby’? If society has the right to intervene when a crime is being committed, why on earth do you condemn those who think that society has the same right to protect the innocent from harm regardless of stage of development and location?

Your suggestion that we should provide incentives for women to keep their babies is highly commendable; nevertheless, your argument defending women’s right to take the life of their own flesh and blood is unacceptable in my book and it is clearly condemned in God’s Book as well. Jesus did identify himself with “the least,” and no other members of humanity, in my view, qualify better to be considered as the least than the unborn.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Good questions Nic! Thanks so muchfor being compassionate and caring about this issue!

Nic

One has no right to force one's opinion on another. That is what the right to privacy is about.

Certainly you state your opinion well and often. Once stated, it remains for the reader to accept or reject. It is not ours to judge that decision.

I have no intention of attempting to change your opinion--it may be morally valid. But that again is to be decided in another court, isn't it?

Dispite the possibility of abortion, the birth rate is climbing and the neglect of children is growing. Seems our primary focus should be on children in need.

Yet, by and large, the pro-life group are very slow in public health issues that would save the born but deprived children.

It think the example of Jesus, should be our model in our concern for the born. Tom

Tom,

On 04 December 2008 at 12:43 you stated: “One has no right to force one's opinion on another. That is what the right to privacy is about.” I cannot agree with this false premise! My personal rights end when they encroach on somebody else’s rights, and more so if they place at risk the rights of another individual right to life. The moment my rights deprive other human beings of life, my rights, whether private or public evaporates into thin air.

You emphasize the need to reduce society’s neglect of children who have already been born, and I agree. This doesn’t mean that advocating for the right to life of the unborn should take second place in society’s agenda. If you were to arrive at a primitive place where children are dying like flies for lack of proper medical care, lack of food, and lack of proper education, what would your first line of action be if you had the resources to help alleviate the situation? Would you first start building a school and a gymnasium while neglecting the needs of those who are dying for lack of food and medical care?

Approximately three thousand abortions are performed every week in our country, and the majority of them are done for convenience instead of lack of food or clothing, yet you claim that the neglect of children who were allowed to be born has priority over those who are mercilessly being torn to pieces before they have had the chance to take their first breath. I cannot agree with your philosophy. Of course, I am not asking you to alter your mind on this issue. You have the right to continue cherishing your personal opinion, and I mine. I am responding to your comments hoping that someone who is not set in his/her views might have the chance to decide who has the right view on this issue.

I know that you have done and are doing a lot for humanity, and the Lord will recompense you for this; nevertheless, do not try to disparage what somebody else’s widow’s mite may do for humanity. God will judge each one not on the basis of his/her generosity, but rather on the basis of his/her sacrifice. The rich give out of their abundance, while the poor out of the little they have. Try to be generous not only with your means, but with your words as well!

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic

Thank you for your response. No institution has a more public image than the SDA Church in its demands for the Right of Privacy--It has fought Blue Laws since its inception. It sees
the Mark of the Beast in every societal change.

I have stated my stand of the Right to Life several times.

I merely suggested, that we may be going a bridge too far, in suggesting compelling others to behave as we would or should?

Roe vs. Wade was to de-criminalize, under strict(?) guidelines, the choice of the mother. Why is it always the male that is the most outspoken on the issue?

If men could give birth, one wag observed: "Abortion would be a Sacrement". Tom

Tom,

On 05 December 2008 at 4:16 you mentioned, among other things, the “mark of the beast.” From my youth I was indoctrinated in the belief that the mark of the beast applied specifically to the Catholic Church, and that the phrase allegedly used by a certain Pope, “Vicarious Filii Dei,” which added to the enigmatic 666 number, was the undeniable proof for this.

Eventually, it dawned on me that predatory animals were used by biblical prophets to describe individuals and institutions who acted like predatory beasts of prey. In other words, I came to the conclusion that the “beast of Revelation” could be identified much easier by the character of people and institutions rather by an enigmatic numeral.

It is true that the Catholic Church acted in the past like beasts of prey through their infamous inquisition, which resulted in the torture and death of thousands of Christians who were mercilessly persecuted by the church. Nevertheless, I ask: Is the Church of Rome acting like the beasts of prey today?

Who is killing the innocents today? If Rome today is a staunch defender of the right to life of the unborn, while the U.S. leads the way through its legalization of abortion with the blessings of the Adventist Church, then who is acting like the beasts of prey today?

You argue that Roe v Wade did decriminalize abortion by placing it under “strict guidelines.” Strict guidelines? Are you kidding? These guidelines justify the killing of the unborn not only in case of rape and incest, but also whenever the baby is unwanted, and even past the point of viability if the pregnancy is affecting the mental health of the pregnant woman. Well, how many women are free from depressive thoughts when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?

All a woman needs to do is find a physician willing to state that the pregnancy is in fact affecting the woman’s mental health, and bingo, the dismemberment of the innocent baby becomes legal in the eyes of the law. Where do you see the strictness in these guidelines? We Adventists label these kinds of killing as “therapeutic abortions.” If taking the life of innocent human beings is therapy, then would the defenders of this kind of treatments accept such therapy for themselves?

I do not see how you can describe the act of protecting the innocent from a sure death as “going a bridge too far.” When an innocent human being is about to be mercilessly executed, there is no such thing as going a bridge too far!

You criticize men for condemning the practice of abortion. My answer is: If men twisted up the legal system by legalizing the slaughter of the innocents, men have the right and responsibility of undoing what other men messed up.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums