So my one blog reader has requested a substantial post, so here it is.
Many of you have probably heard the case of a California lesbian couple (of 18 years) who sought In Vitro treatments from their "in-network" doctor, who declined to perform the procedure on the basis of her religious beliefs (I believe she is an evangelical Christian). She referred the couple to another doctor who would perform the procedure, though I think this doctor was out of network, forcing them to pay the costs associated with IVF treatments.
The California Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of non-discrimination; it was, in effect, no different then denying care on the basis of race, nationality, disability, etc. So as you would guess, gay-rights groups applaud, evangelicals inveigh-- you know the drill. So why on earth would this be worth discussing?
Before anyone starts comparing me to Pat Robertson talking about the issue on CBN about an hour ago, a quick disclaimer. I support gay-rights. I believe that persons are entitled to the same rights as all others regardless of their sexual orientation. I think that the most profound failure of the Christian church in this century is the failure to recognize homosexuality as a normal and beautiful expression of human sexuality (noting of course the failure to establish real equality based on race still carries over into this century).
That being said, I am a little uncomfortable with the California Supreme Court's decision. I am happy that discrimination against a committed (and I'm sure wonderful) lesbian couple has been called out, but I'm not sure that it protects the rights of persons with religious beliefs on the one hand, and doctors on the other. Let me try to break it down as inoffensively as possible.
Most commentators have compared this discrimination to a doctor denying care to a patient based on race, an all too familiar situation for many. But I argue that this analogy fails on one important point: the necessary connection between the belief and the requested procedure, in this case IVF.
Let's use an example. John and Jane Smith, an African-American couple, are seeking IVF from an in-network doctor, Dr. Ray Cyst. Dr. Cyst is an old school racist: he beliefs that Africa is populated by the "cursed seed of Ham" in Genesis, who were cursed and turned black. Hence he feels uncomfortable performing IVF on this couple. But this analogy lacks the necessary connection between the "religious" belief that this couple is cursed, and the procedure (to artificial produce a pregnancy). Thus Dr. Cyst shouldn't have grounds to deny care: in a sense, his belief is immaterial to the procedure.
The case of the Lesbian couple seems to provide a more ready connection between the belief and the procedure. Dr. Evan Gelical believes that human sexuality is God given in its heterosexual form, and that all other forms of human sexuality are depraved. If asked to "naturalize" the relationship of a Lesbian couple by performing IVF (providing them with a child, which she believes is the "natural" product of heterosexual sex) there seems a more real connection between the religious belief and the denial of treatment.
No doubt I think Dr. Evan Gelical's belief is stupid, and on as many grounds as exegetically misguided as Dr. Cyst's. But it is his belief nonetheless, and I am made uncomfortable whenever someone is prevented from acting (or not acting) on the basis of a religious belief. It may be stupid, but it is her belief nonetheless, and most importantly it has a significant connection to her denying the procedure.
A few other notes. Of course with procedures that address life threatening conditions, this right is superseded by the Doctor's responsibility to assist the patient. But in cases in which it is extremely elective, as IVF is, perhaps one should protect religious belief no matter how insipid, discriminatory, and against the teachings of Jesus it is.
And if I didn't stir up enough trouble, let me kick another bee's nest. I don't see how any legitimate follower of Jesus could be on either end of IVF. What a wasteful procedure (and I'm not talking about the sea monkeys that get thrown away-- they're not people, they're sea monkeys). In terms of the $20,ooo+ required for IVF, I don't see how anyone could justify spending that much money simply to produce an offspring that shares THEIR OWN genetic material. It takes an inordinate amount of self-love to think that you are that important. As global food prices skyrocket, and people increasingly are starving and suffering across the globe, we are paying in excess of $20,ooo simply to lionize the perfection of our own genetic makeup. Adopt a kid (not a foreign one, which costs nearly as much as IVF), maybe even a foster child. You know, a kid who is too old to be cute and cuddly (or come without emotional baggage), but is nonetheless the person who really needs a loving household to nurture them and help them grow (y'know, like Jesus did with most people).
So there. Please don' t eat me alive. Thank you.
