In a disturbing unanimous opinion today, the California Supreme Court ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The Plaintiff, Ms. Benitez, brought suit because physicians at North Coast Women’s Medical Care Group could not, based upon conscience, perform one particular form of artificial insemination. Ms. Benitez was told from the beginning of the patient-physician relationship that certain North Coast physicians could not perform that particular elective procedure on unmarried women. When later denied that elective procedure, Ms. Benitez claimed it was because of her sexual orientation and sued.

The Court’s ruling is disturbing—and dangerous—for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Benitez’s arguments—as adopted by the California Supreme Court—represent an extremist position that will deny physicians free exercise in any medical situation. Rather than balancing the patient and physician interests so that everyone wins, the Court completely ignored the physicians’ constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise rights. Thus, this decision will force physicians to perform any elective procedure in any situation, regardless of their moral or religious beliefs. In fact, this decision is dangerous to any professional in any occupation.

Second, the Court’s decision poses a threat to good medical care. It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. We want our physicians to have consciences. In addition, by giving physicians an ultimatum—treat every patient in any way she demands, or get out of the profession—we will be left with a diminished supply of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers. Obviously, a diminished supply will be disastrous for the overwhelming demand in American society today.

What is ironic about Ms. Benitez’s arguments and the Court’s opinion is that both demonstrate their complete intolerance for the lifestyle decisions of other Americans. Ms. Benitez demands to be respected in her lifestyle decisions; but she does not afford that same grace and dignity to the decisions of others.

AUL filed an amicus brief at the appellate level as well as before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA), American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), and Physicians for Life. AUL argued that Ms. Benitez’s extremist arguments would, if adopted by the Court, open a Pandora’s Box of ramifications threatening to religious freedom and the practice of medicine.

The case now returns to the trial court for a trial and important factual determinations including whether the physicians declined to perform the demanded treatment because of Ms. Benitez’s marital status or her sexual orientation. If, as the physicians have demonstrated all along, the trial court agrees that the physicians acted based upon Ms. Benitez’s marital status, the case should be decided in favor of the physicians. Ms. Benitez has raised no claims of marital discrimination.

As you may recall, the AUL State Supreme Court Project involved researching, writing, and publishing to the web 50 whitepapers — one for each state — on the state supreme courts.

In order to make the information even more accessible, the AUL Legal Team has been working to draft summaries of each whitepaper. The summaries available currently are:

• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Nebraska
• Nevada

Given the continuing importance of state supreme courts, we at AUL are pleased to be able to make this information available.

In its controversial 4-3 decision on marriage, the California Supreme Court also decided, for the first time anywhere in the United States, that as a matter of state constitutional law, sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” deserving of heightened protection.

The legal repercussions of this case are yet to be known. However, we may soon have the chance to evaluate how far this liberal court is willing to go in advancing a progressive social agenda and undermining the right of the people to decide important issues and govern themselves. A case currently before the court and dealing with healthcare rights of conscience may provide that opportunity.

In North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court (Benitez) (Case No. S 142892), Ms. Benitez, an unmarried lesbian, filed suit when two Christian physicians at North Coast would not artificially inseminate her because of her marital status. Ms. Benitez filed suit even though the physicians referred her to an alternative provider (who successfully performed the procedure) and paid the costs associated with her transfer to the new provider.

Despite evidence to the contrary, Ms. Benitez claims the physicians refused to treat her because she is a lesbian and argues that their decision amounts to illegal discrimination. Further, Ms. Benitez and her attorneys have also argued that the physicians have no right to assert their consciences as a defense to the claims in the lawsuit.

A lower court disagreed and, in December 2006, ruled that the physicians had every right to assert their constitutionally-protected rights of conscience as a defense in the case. Ms. Benitez appealed and this issue is now before the California Supreme Court.

Thus, this case now pits the long-established federal and state constitutional rights of healthcare providers to practice according to their consciences against the new determination of the California Supreme Court that sexual orientation is entitled to heightened legal protection.

At worst, the court could use its analysis in the marriage case to undermine healthcare rights of conscience. Specifically, the court could find that a physician’s right of conscience is trumped by the right of patients to demand certain procedures. In doing so, the Court would likely find that medicine is not a service but a commodity and that the patient is entitled to receive what he or she wants without regard to the physician’s ethics, morals or religious beliefs.

This would be an unprecedented and incredibly dangerous decision for patients and healthcare providers, ultimately undermining the quality and availability of healthcare in California while eviscerating important constitutional rights.

For more information on healthcare rights of conscience click here.

To review the brief that Americans United for Life filed in support of the physicians in the Benitez case click here.

So says an editorial by Phyllis Schlafly at Townhall.com.

She’s writing specifically on a Kansas ballot proposition that would allow voters in Johnson County to elect judges to the 10th judicial district, rather than having them appointed by lawyers under what is known as the Missouri Plan.

How state judges get their jobs is a matter of state option, and there are a wide variety of rules.

Some state court judges are elected by the people, some in partisan elections, some in nonpartisan elections. About half the states, including Kansas, use some variation of the so-called Missouri Plan, a process that originated in the 1940s, which gives broad control to licensed attorneys.

The implications reach far beyond Kansas.

We’ve got a better chance of sticking with the will of the American people if state judges are elected rather than appointed by lawyers who have an interest in winning big-verdict cases before those very judges.

See also: AUL State Supreme Court Project

All 50 state supreme court whitepapers have been posted at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org! We will continue to update the papers as situations change in the states.

The AUL State Supreme Court Project is just one way that we are preparing for the day after Roe. Explore our main website, AUL.org, for more information on our work.

In addition to the two whitepapers posted this morning (Idaho and Louisiana), the following whitepapers were posted this afternoon:

• Florida
• Hawaii
• Maryland
• Minnesota
• New Mexico

This bring the number of state supreme court whitepapers now available at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org to 47.

The Idaho and Louisiana supreme court whitepapers have just been posted at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org. There are now 42 state supreme court whitepapers available.

In addition, all of the state supreme court materials from Defending Life 2008 are now available:

• The Essential Role of State Supreme Courts in the World After Roe
• Summary Information on State Supreme Courts
• State Ballot Initiatives: Friend or Foe? A look at controversial state proposals put to a vote in 2006

The 40th state supreme court whitepaper, Mississippi has just been posted at AULStateSupemeCourtProject.org.

The Nebraska whitepaper has just been posted, and the Tennessee whitepaper has just been updated at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org.

The Nevada whitepaper has just been posted, and the New Jersey whitepaper has been updated.

This brings the total number of state supreme court whitepapers to 38.

AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org

With the posting of the Georgia, Kentucky, and Wyoming white papers there are now 37 state supreme court white papers available at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, the court battles will not stop. They will move to the states, where state supreme courts will play a vital role. Instead of focusing on one national President, one Senate and one Supreme Court, the pro-life movement will need to focus on 50 state governors, 50 state legislatures and 50 state supreme courts.

Many state supreme courts are hotbeds of judicial activism. Already, sixteen activist state supreme courts have invented a right to abortion in their state’s constitution. In the same way the pro-life and conservative movements have spent decades working to stop judicial activism in the United States Supreme Court, we are extending those efforts to the state supreme courts and restore a constitutionalist judicial philosophy.

To that end, Americans United for Life initiated the State Supreme Court Project, an in-depth look at state supreme courts’ treatment of life issues and an examination of judicial restraint and/or activism at the state level. We commissioned 50 white papers, covering the status of each state’s supreme court, and examining judicial restraint and/or activism within that state.

The 34th AUL State Supreme Court Project whitepaper, Arkansas (PDF), has just been posted at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org

We’ve just posted the Tennessee whitepaper, which is the thirty-third of 50 papers to be posted.

Visit AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org to see the complete list.

Four new state supreme court whitepapers have been posted at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org: Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.

This brings to 32 the number of whitepapers posted. To date we’ve received 49 first drafts for review and editing, along with 46 second drafts. Thirty-seven final drafts have been approved for publication by the authors, and as formatting work is complete, we’re posting them at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, the court battles will not stop. They will move to the states, where state supreme courts will play a vital role. Instead of focusing on one national President, one Senate and one Supreme Court, the pro-life movement will need to focus on 50 state governors, 50 state legislatures and 50 state supreme courts.

In response, Americans United for Life initiated the AUL State Supreme Court Project, an in-depth look at state supreme courts’ treatment of life issues and an examination of judicial restraint and/or activism at the state level. We commissioned 50 white papers, covering the status of each state’s supreme court, and examining judicial restraint and/or activism within the state.

AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org compiles the white papers (in PDF format) into an online pro-life reference on the status of state supreme courts around the country. Twenty-six (26) Twenty-eight (28) white paper PDFs are currently available at AULStateSupremeCourtProject.org. Over the next few months, we will be adding the remaining white papers as work on them is completed.

The AUL State Supreme Court Project is just one way that Americans United for Life is preparing for the day after Roe. We invite you to explore our main website, AUL.org, for more information on our work.

See also Preparing for the Day After Roe: The Increasing Importance of State Supreme Courts in the Fight against Abortion.