How come only doctors?

And why must they? What if they don't want to be inseminated? What a terrifying ordeal for a non-suspecting lesbian.

leeatwater! ff!

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!

think of the lawsuits...

And just exactly how do you inseminate a gay man?

Well this certainly addresses this important issue:

"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love, with women all across the country."

Cheers

The USA Sucks!

Look at her eyes doc. Make her roll them back.

The clinic referred the couple to another facility. Don't see what the problem is.

If you're a doctor in the state of California, to what extent are you allowed to exercise religious freedom? The court said that in the case of abortion, doctors are permitted to deny the procedure, but refer it elsewhere. Why not here?

Sure does make it interesting when they're able to make up laws as they go along. Makes you wonder why California even bothers with a legislature--wouldn't it be easier just to let the courts figure out everything?

RCade, you've waited your entire life to write that headline.

"(08-18) 12:53 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Doctors in California must treat gays and lesbians the same as any other patient, "

In other words, they have to ask for insurance first before giving medical help.

Seriously, I am not a doctor, but I would gladly inseminate any (hot) lesbian that wants to be inseminated. The only payment I woudl require is a video of her and her partner "having fun" .

The US Marines are officially behind this, and have dumped Toys for Tots for Tykes for Dykes.

FF x 2 lee

....In related news, turkey-baster stocks plummeted.

I understand those man-hating Lesbos clamp down and make the Doctor earn his 50 bucks.

In other words, they have to ask for insurance first before giving medical help.

Seriously, I am not a doctor, but I would gladly inseminate any (hot) lesbian that wants to be inseminated. The only payment I woudl require is a video of her and her partner "having fun" .

Posted by member2586 at 2008-08-18 07:29 PM

VERY FUNNY

OH MY WORD, COOKFISH!

ff 4 u 2!

this'll be the post of the week.

So this will likely go on appeal and go the SCOTUS.

Next they (the courts) will demand that all doctors perform abortions.

Why not--just because they work on knees or throats doesn't mean they shouldn't perform abortions too.

Didn't the case of the pharmaceutical folks get upheld --that they would not have prescribe birth control or the RDU40 drug based on religious grounds?
(can't recall)...

inseminate them with what? dog juice? So what you are really saying is, that these dog ugly women, who could'nt get a man drunk enough to boink them, goes after another dog ugly woman for a night of strap-ons, then has a doctor inseminate them with male kick-a-poo juice using a turkey baister. And here all this time the dykes try to prove they are better than men. By the way, who is paying for the turkey baister? It better not be my tax dollars.

Now I can understand a queer getting a turkey baister rammed up it's rear, but does it have the plumbing to have kids?That is funny, when you think about it.Some people's kids! heh heh !

The California Supreme Court has been running amok and I sure hope the voters of that state pay attention in November to who they vote for so to put an end to this nonsense.

There goes the old Cucumber and zuchini, used to work every time, better even than Carrots and Bananas! Need to warm them a bit, tho!

Oh yeah, where do they get the joy juice for the deed, some more college students paying for their education by a little, slight of hand maneuver?

Careful though, in some states, donors were made to support the packages later in life!

Geeze, all you've got to do on DR is put the word "lesbian" in the title and the guys
on here swarm to the thread like bees to honey. What's the allure?

For me it's purely intellectual. Plus the fact that even lesbians need a good pounding every now and then.

The allure, Chrissie, is that merely fantasizing something sexual with a female of a different persuasion gets some guy hot and bothered. Surely the ones obsessed with male organs also focus on turkey basters. herm

Must inseminate? Good. They're doctors, not fucking fundies. If you find the work objectionable, become a watchtower publisher.

to what extent are you allowed to exercise religious freedom?

Obviously not to the extent to discriminate based on it.

But what is profound is that the pro life crowd is against creating a new baby solely based on bigotry.

Good point-726!
The "Pro-Life" crowd ain't so much, are they?

All the court said was-they can't be discriminated against them because of their own religious beliefs.
You righties seem to have problem with the ways you treat other human beings....for bein' such jeebus freaks-I'd think you'd want to live up to his beliefs-Oh well!

******** to what extent are you allowed to exercise religious freedom? ********

........a bad car accident....victim lost a lot of blood......taken to the closest hospital.....with one doctor on duty in the ER........

........doctor to victim "You've lost so much blood that you will die in ten or fifteen minutes, a blood infusion could probably save your life, but I'm a Jehova's Witness, and a blood transfusion is against MY religious beliefs....so sorry sucker....but YOU are going to die."

Obviously not to the extent to discriminate based on it.

But what is profound is that the pro life crowd is against creating a new baby solely based on bigotry.

Posted by 726
* * * *

They can make a ba--I mean--"create a new baby"--if they want. I just resent courts telling someone what they have to do. Can I sue a California doctor for not prescribing me marijuana, for medicinal uses, if it's legal there? Why is it okay to prescribe pot for AIDS sufferers, but not for guys with serious knee injuries?

Just askin'.

" Why is it okay to prescribe pot for AIDS sufferers, but not for guys with serious knee injuries?"

Any chronic pain sufferer, including those with knee injuries, can get a prescription in the great state of California. As it should be.

I just resent courts telling someone what they have to do

RiR

Why do you not resent the relentless attempts to get the court to tell a woman what she cannot do?

Sometimes the retorts just write themselves, don't they?

Obviously the Supreme Court doesn't respect the beliefs of every doctor and like to discriminate against them.
It is funny how they try so hard to not to discriminate and are always discriminating against normal beliefs.

Isn't it a bit odd that these doctors have no religious objection to the idea itself of artificial insemination on anyone? If God wants someone to have a baby, why does he need a doctor to plant some third party sperm? It's funny how these religious types seem to pick and choose arbitrarily what God does and doesn't want.

Geeze, all you've got to do on DR is put the word "lesbian" in the title and the guys
on here swarm to the thread like bees to honey. What's the allure?

Posted by CalifChris

Forbidden fruit.

FF EDDIE

What caught my eye CC was the "Doctors Must Inseminate Lesbians"

I can't repeat the picture that flashed through my mind, but it involved "Pat", and a lot of screaming and torn hair and skin ALA giving a cat a pill.

tfdnobamessia - how dare you invoke the name of "God's" gift to humanity!

All of them.

What will the liberals be telling us is normal next? Will it be beasteality or necrophilia?

Why not have the children the normal way, it's worked for a few hundred million years?

RCade, you've waited your entire life to write that headline.

FF. It's times like these I'm glad the Retort quit parody for reality.

I just resent courts telling someone what they have to do.

Yeah, those silly doctors for not treating someone medically based on bigotry.

They are patriots in the war on homosexuality for gods sakes.

Did they think that in their practice that no homosexual couple would ever request to be artificially insemenated? Then maybe if it were against their religious beliefs they made the wrong career choice. Not very smart if you ask me.

Isn't it a bit odd that these doctors have no religious objection to the idea itself of artificial insemination on anyone? If God wants someone to have a baby, why does he need a doctor to plant some third party sperm? It's funny how these religious types seem to pick and choose arbitrarily what God does and doesn't want.

Posted by TFDNihilist

Excellent point. I do beleive that is the rub there. It is not that they are against artificial insemenation, it is just they are againts doing so to a homosexual, which is illegal. Good for the court for enforcing the law.

What will the liberals be telling us is normal next? Will it be beasteality or necrophilia?

That took longer than I thought.

"I do beleive that is the rub there."

Heh heh. Heh heh heh. You said "rub".

(sorry 726, couldn't resist!)

"That took longer than I thought.

Posted by 726"

Has anyone said "slippery slope" yet?

"What will the liberals be telling us is normal next? Will it be beasteality or necrophilia?"

Posted by FreddyK

That's good, Freddy. Take it the utmost ridiculous, moronic extreme you possibly can. Equating of homosexuality with buggering beasts, the dead, and little children seems somehow to provide a convincing counterpoint in the homophobic world of your ilk.

Soon The Johnson will raise its swollen head with, though well written, equally extreme counterpoints.

Too bad The DoubtingThomas no longer haunts this board, 'cause then I could whip out the trademark phrase:

"Debauchery! Debauchery!! Raaaawk!"

FF. It's times like these I'm glad the Retort quit parody for reality.

Posted by rcade

When did that happen, I haven't noticed any change.

"Equating of homosexuality with buggering beasts, the dead, and little children seems somehow to provide a convincing counterpoint in the homophobic world of your ilk."

Posted by ZOT

You're right! I don't see a difference.

"If you're a doctor in the state of California, to what extent are you allowed to exercise religious freedom?"

I'd hope the answer is "none." If you are a doctor, I'd hope you'd be able to set your "religious freedom" aside for a moment and perform whatever legally authorized procedures your patient wants. Especially when you aren't opposed to the procedure itself, just doing it for gay people.

"I'd hope the answer is "none." If you are a doctor, I'd hope you'd be able to set your "religious freedom" aside for a moment and perform whatever legally authorized procedures your patient wants."
Posted by JOE

A counterpoint Joe: Let's say you have a doctor, a plastic surgeon, who does breast reconstruction for women who have had cancer. Some womnn comes in and wants to have augmentation for cosmetic reasons only and the doctor refuses to for moral reasons. Can the doctor refuse? It is a legal procedure does the doctor have to do it? Probably not and the patient can just go else where. So why can't the women in question do the same?

I am with Joe. I would hope the hippocratic oath trumps a doctor's religious beliefs. The same applies for lawyers - I would never turn down a client because they live a lifestyle that I disagree with (hell, I represent a lot of yucky republicans).

"You're right! I don't see a difference."

Posted by FreddyK

So, Freddy, do you have sex only for procreation and only using the missionary position?

There are those who believe that any sex other than for procreation and in any position other than the missionary position is a perverted act fit only for animals, and is contrary to god's edicts.

So if you deviate from the above, you are little more than hedonistic filth.

"So, Freddy, do you have sex only for procreation and only using the missionary position?"

Posted by ZOT

Why are you trying to figure out the right way to do it?

"Why do you not resent the relentless attempts to get the court to tell a woman what she cannot do?"

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

The courts tell everyone that there are things they can't do. For example, they told me I can't do certain drugs. That they tell a woman she can't off her baby immediately before it's born, unless it's going to kill her, really doesn't garner much sympathy from me.

"Let's say you have a doctor, a plastic surgeon, who does breast reconstruction for women who have had cancer. Some womnn comes in and wants to have augmentation for cosmetic reasons only and the doctor refuses to for moral reasons."

Sounds like a different situation to me. In your case, the doctor is discriminating against his patients on the basis of whether or not they have had cancer - that criteria has more to do with the practice of medicine than refusing to perform a procedure for someone just because they are a lesbian.

"Why are you trying to figure out the right way to do it?"

Posted by FreddyK

And I see that you totally missed the point of my question. Or prefer to dance around it because perhaps you do do perform some acts that may be considered by some as degenerate and don't want to be exposed as a hypocrite.

It was not an attempt to draw you out and admit to your personal "perversions," but rather to point out that what is normally practiced and enjoyed by some is regarded as deviant by others. One need only look at laws in various states and communities concerning oral sex practices, or the selling of personal sex devices, or non-gay anal sex.

"Sounds like a different situation to me. In your case, the doctor is discriminating against his patients on the basis of whether or not they have had cancer - that criteria has more to do with the practice of medicine than refusing to perform a procedure for someone just because they are a lesbian."

Posted by JOE

OK, can a doctor who does breast augmentation on woman refuse to do it on a guy because he doesn't think that's right?

"It was not an attempt to draw you out and admit to your personal "perversions," but rather to point out that what is normally practiced and enjoyed by some is regarded as deviant by others"

Posted by ZOT

So I get your point, you're a deviant. Personally I don't care what people do but what two people of the same sex do physically isn't sex by definition.

Posted by FreddyK

"So I get your point, you're a deviant."

And you reach that conclusion how? From your postings here, I can conclude that you don't give a damn about equal treatment under the laws of the US, just what little Freddy likes or dislikes. I could also conclude that your nothing but a whiny little homophobic bigot, but I'm not going to say that. {hee...}

"Personally I don't care what people do but what two people of the same sex do physically isn't sex by definition."

That's your opinion. And you do care or you wouldn't rant the way you do.

Inseminate Lesbians ? Since I feel that Homos are a plague on the earth, then helping them propigate is liken to breeding West nile.

"That's your opinion."
Posted by ZOT
No that is a biological fact and has been so for several hundred million years. You don't get to change facts.

"Homos are a plague on the earth"

Take it up with the manufacturer.

When did civilians become subject to orders on just what they can and can't do regardless of their personal beliefs or values? Who the hell gave our courts permission to determine what workers in any field must accept or else? These doctors are (for the most part) independent citizens of this country and are not subject to an outside groups orders. Or at least that is how I see it. This edict must and I believe will be over turned. Freedom is the right to do or not do as you see fit. This is another erosion of the individuals rights and should not be tolerated.

Man has a sin nature. Period. It is common knowledge. People are continually resisting doing "bad" things. What better way to dispel guilt, than for society to change what is bad. An old and silly slogan: "If it feels good do it" Also, people think one sin is worse than another. This is not true. Sin is a state of being. Not an action.

"These doctors are (for the most part) independent citizens of this country and are not subject to an outside groups orders...Freedom is the right to do or not do as you see fit. This is another erosion of the individuals rights and should not be tolerated."

Substitute "who'll refuse service to blacks" for "doctors", and you'll recognize the slippery slope.

If you can't do the job to the standard determined by your chosen profession, then you are in the wrong profession.

Tell these doctors there's always work waiting tables. Lesbians usually don't order an inesemination on the side with their salad... I think.

While I have no real issue with the recent court ruling regarding same sex marriages, I do have a problem with this.
These procedures are not medically necessary. Therefore, the doctors are not breaking any oath.
I feel that the doctors should be able to make the choice on whether to preform such procedures if they have a religious objection to the patients sexual orientation and life choices.

Just another example of how the gov is getting into the personal lives of the citizens. Don't we have more important things to worry over, like maybe another stupid Cold War?!?

"These procedures are not medically necessary. Therefore, the doctors are not breaking any oath. "

Sorry, medical "necesssity" isn't part of the oath.

"No that is a biological fact and has been so for several hundred million years. You don't get to change facts."

Posted by FreddyK

So, extrapolating from your opinion on what sex is and isn't, Bill Clinton really didn't have sex with that woman. And a cigar really is just a cigar and not a sex toy.

"I feel that the doctors should be able to make the choice on whether to preform such procedures if they have a religious objection to the patients sexual orientation and life choices."

What if they have a "religious" objection to someone's skin color, or someone's religion? Can they claim their religion disallows equal treatment to Blacks or Jews?

I agree with you, Oberon.

This is not a Hippocratic Oath issue. AI is a voluntary medical procedure. There are instances when people have to simply acknowledge who and what they are and that they can't have it all no matter how much they may wish to have it all. In the case of homosexuals, they are what they are and choose not procreate in the classical manner. If one doctor denies them this voluntary procedure, they can seek out another.

Who cares!. What he did was rape a woman in Arkansas and as governor sexually harrassed another. She sued him and as part of the investigation he lied under oath. He then ordered a public official to remove and hide evidence that he knew as a lawyer would be asked for. He was disbarred for that and impeached.

Way to stay on topic there, Fredo!

Wow Fred Dyk... you are on FIRE today!

(But don't worry, I'm sure you can get another pair of pants on sale at the WallMart)

If it doesn't break their oath, sure. They only pledge to heal, not preform procedures that are not medically necessary.
But, I don't know of any religion that would cause someone to have a religious objection based on skin color or another religion.

Not that I'm saying I'm right, simply stating how I view the situation. We can't force people to accept something they certainly don't agree with.

I'm not anti-LGBT, quite the opposite. But, I believe in personal choice and that no man or institution has the right to impose their views onto someone else.

Not that my voice even matters in this situation. I don't live in California. Where I live, this wouldn't even be an issue, as it is still one of the biggest red states - and probably will be for a long time.

"He was disbarred for that..."

Yes, but he got his law license back after the agreed-upon suspension was concluded.

"...and impeached."

And he was found "not guilty" in his impeachment trial.

Must suck to be you.

And he was found "not guilty" in his impeachment trial.

Posted by truthsetyoufree

No he was impeached but not convicted. It only goes to show how biased and self-serving democrats are.

Wrong again Fred. He was not "not convicted". He was acquitted of the charges. When the Senators voted on the Articles of Impeachment they voted either "guilty" or "not guilty". The majority voted "not guilty" on all charges.

Bill Clinton was therefore found "not guilty".

"Wrong again Fred. He was not "not convicted". He was acquitted of the charges. When the Senators voted on the Articles of Impeachment they voted either "guilty" or "not guilty". The majority voted "not guilty" on all charges.

Bill Clinton was therefore found "not guilty"."

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

From Wikipedia:

Former President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999.

So he was impeached.

Yes Fred, he was impeached. That wasn't the point, and you know it.

"So he was impeached"

That wasn't what you "corrected". Read your 1:52; "And he was found "not guilty" in his impeachment trial" was the phrase with which you took issue.

And the phrase is 100% accurate.

"So he was impeached."

You must be dumber than dirt, Fred Dyk. Of course he was impeached, you idiot. And he was found not guilty.

From your own source:

and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999.

an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty

"No he was impeached but not convicted."

That's right, Fred Dyk. He was not convicted, he was acquitted. In otherwords, he was found not guilty.

Your response only goes to show how biased and self-serving republicans are.

Many would consider me a "conservative" here... I myself consider myself a moderate.

Given that, I have to agree with the California Court for the first time maybe in my natural life.

It is against the law to refuse service to a member of a protected class and I believe California has included "sexual orientation" into their list of protected classes.

Seems pretty clear cut.

"It is against the law to refuse service to a member of a protected class and I believe California has included "sexual orientation" into their list of protected classes."

I had to read that twice; does that mean they can refuse service to "white guys"?

Actually technically they CAN refuse to serve whiteguys Danforth.

White males are not a member of a protected class...

I will give you an example of how it works out:

A company adopts a zero tolerance policy for drugs and smoking.

Employee A) develops a 200 dollar a day coke habit

and Employee B) is found to be a smoker.

The company fires both.

Employee A CAN sue and WILL win becuase he has a illegal drug dependency which is considered a mental disability.

Employee B.. the smoker is SOL. Smoking cigs is a legal activity and is NOT protected in any fashion.

Interesting stuff eh?

That being said: Doing so would cause an absolute firestorm of bad publicity and I think said business would find itself in a world of hurt if they did it.

"That's right, Fred Dyk. He was not convicted, he was acquitted. In otherwords, he was found not guilty.

Your response only goes to show how biased and self-serving republicans are."

Posted by truthsetyoufree

I'm sure you have been just as graceful regarding McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal (he was cleared).

Or are you biased and self-serving?

...cleared of charges that is...

"Or are you biased and self-serving?"

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Of course!

I realize I'm probably way late on this but...

Best headline ever. Seriously. Bravo.

Oh jeesh! I can't believe you gobsmacking religious nuts have avoided the obvious.

If you believe Doctors should be able to avoid the insemination of the lesbians based on their religious 'beliefs'...

...Please post a link to the Bible Passages where God or Jesus says a Doctor must NOT inseminate a Lesbian. Or where 'God or Jesus' says a Gay or Lesbian Couple must NOT adopt children.

You christians don't get to just decide what you're going to believe or not. Either you're in 100% with your 'lord' or you are a hypocrite.

So I repeat: Please Provide Biblical Admonishment against Artificial insemination or Adoption by Gays and Lesbians!

If you cannot provide a link, Chapter and Verse...

Then shut the fuck up!

Geeze, all you've got to do on DR is put the word "lesbian" in the title and the guys
on here swarm to the thread like bees to honey. What's the allure?

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-18 08:55 PM | Reply

No, Chris. All you need is "California" in the headline.

The rest writes itself.

Please Provide Biblical Admonishment against Artificial insemination or Adoption by Gays and Lesbians!

Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2008-08-19 06:36 PM | Reply

Fat, Ulgy Lesbian Chick who can't get a Man in Bed:

There are hundreds of Bible verses that refer to children -- and you know what Fat Ugly Lesbian Chick? They all refer to children as gifts from God, brought into existence through the natural uniting of Man and Woman.

No turkey basters.

Genesis 30:3 -- ... Sleep with her so that she can bear children ....

The same applies for lawyers - I would never turn down a client because they live a lifestyle that I disagree with (hell, I represent a lot of yucky republicans).

Posted by taxman at 2008-08-19 09:29 AM | Reply |

OK, this is the funniest post in months!

A lawyer claiming to be a moral person!

"Genesis 30:3 -- ... Sleep with her so that she can bear children .... "

A pickup line which apparently works when used by "ugly Americans" with submissive women in foreign countries. "Men" who can't compete with real men here in America.

Perhaps "vernon" can only relate to women who say "me so horny" as their mating call.

but I'm a Jehova's Witness, and a blood transfusion is against MY religious beliefs....so sorry sucker....but YOU are going to die."

Posted by skizziks at 2008-08-18 10:17 PM | Reply

What a load of horseshit bigotry.

I know several Jehovah's Witness doctors, and they would not refuse blood for a dying man. They may not take blood for themselves, but it is different for someone not of their faith.

If they had a problem with it they'd not be working the ER.

But the truth is not important to bigots like you; only spewing hate matters.

**** But the truth is not important to bigots like you; only spewing hate matters.

Posted by vernon *****

.....what's with the "hate" all the time Vern......

......things slow at the trailer park ?......

They only pledge to heal,

Wrong.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

Posted by 726 at 2008-08-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag

Not sure how that makes "I want to have a baby. There is nothing wrong with me, I just don;t want to ahve sex with a man." part of their oath. Sorry, I'm all fine with lesbians wanting kids and whatnot, but you can go stuff yourself if you think a doctor should be "required" to do an elective procedure on anyone.

There goes my plan to do it myself....

I'm all fine with lesbians wanting kids and whatnot, but you can go stuff yourself...

Well, apparently not!

...if you think a doctor should be "required" to do an elective procedure on anyone. -- Sohefox

Hey Sohe,

This is a fascinating legal issue. Remember, doctors are licensed by the government. I think the real issue becomes whether or not they're entitled to discriminate against anyone. I assume people would be appalled if doctors refused service on the basis of race. I'm sure there are any number of straight women who get artificially inseminated because time's running out and they don't have a partner, so I don't think you can make the "must have sex with man if you want a kid" demand stick.

Umm Phoenix? Straight women don't have the "right" to have a doctor artificially inseminate them either. Many clinics refuse to do so for unmarried women and refer them to other clinics that they know will.

This is exactly what the clinic she went to did. Refused her service and sent her to a clinic they believed WOULD do it.

And she sued. And somehow won. Why are lesbians suddenly held to a different standard then unmarried straight women? Nobody was able to sue the old clinics because, and here it goes again: A DOCTOR SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO PERFORM AN ELECTIVE PROCEDURE ON ANYONE FOR ANY REASON THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT.

By your logic, any doctor should be required to perform an abortion (which is 99.99999% of the time also an elective procedure) on anyone, regardless of their own morality. If I went to a doctor and wanted my penis chopped off, the doctor should be FORCED to perform this surgery, regardless of moral objections? There's a whole giant world of difference between medically necessary procedures and elective surgery.

sohe:

They won on a very simple premise:

Businesses (and yes being a doctor IS a business) can not discriminate in california on the basis of race, gender, creed, national origin, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Single women aren;t truly a protected class... however, these two ARE a member.

This was a legal issue of discrimination as defined by California law.

ABH, lame but correct. Doesn't make it right. If the doctor had half a brain he'd have said "I refused her because she is unmarried" and this wouldn't have been an issue. At least I THINK it wouldn't have been.

Lame it may be Sohe, but unfortunately it leaves NO wiggle room.

The doc could have tried to argue that it was the unmarried part, but I have a feeling their is not one group of 12 jurors in the entire state that wouldn't have seen through it.

By your logic, any doctor should be required to perform an abortion -- Sohe

No, my logic doesn't suggest that at all. As long as doctors citing religious reasons are refusing to perform abortions for anyone, they're not discriminating.

By your logic, though, doctors should be able to deny any elective procedure on the basis of race.

By your logic, though, doctors should be able to deny any elective procedure on the basis of race.

Posted by Phoenix at 2008-08-20 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag

Doctors should be able to deny any elective procedure and shouldn't have to give a reason at all.

Yes, I believe that through and through.