Re: Religious objections to treating lesbians for infertility - CORRECTION

[AAsch]

I got the posture of the case wrong in my previous one sentence description. Here is a more accurate description of the case history:   "In 2001, a Superior Court judge threw out the lawsuit on the grounds that federal rules covering employer health plans bar state civil rights actions. The San Diego appeals court reversed that in 2003, however, ruling that the federal law doesn't apply if a doctor denied treatment for nonmedical reasons. When the case returned to Superior Court, lawyers for Benitez asked Judge Ronald Prager to rule before trial that the doctors could not raise the religious-liberty issue as a defense because there is no religious-belief exception to the Unruh Act. When Prager agreed, the doctors went to the appeals court."  See: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050807/news_1n7vitro.html Allen Asch   In a message dated 6/15/2006 11:48:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The California Supreme Court this week agreed to hear the case of North Coast Women's Care Medical Group vs. Superior Court in which a lesbian appeals the dismissal of her case against doctors who asserted their religious beliefs as a reason to deny her infertility treatments.   For several news accounts, see this link: http://tinyurl.com/m6f4z   A Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund brief in the case is at: http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/488.pdf   Allen Asch

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.