I poked my head out into the real world, just to see what’s happening outside of the hospital. I hear Zarqawi was killed (at which happy occurrence, I refuse to let my mental blocks prevent me from saying very nasty things about him, in the full expectation that he is damned in hell now anyway, and it’s good to agree with that). I observe that President Bush is making multiple speeches, that the Republicans in Congress seem to have got up the backbone to support the war out loud, and that the immigration debate continues.

And from California: The state Supreme Court is taking up the case of two Christian doctors, fertility specialists, who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian woman. Although she has now got a child from some other doctors, she is suing these two on the grounds that they discriminated against her, and violated California’s law forbidding discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, and no doubt soda preference too. The Supreme Court is involved because an appeals court last year sided with the doctors. The California Medical Association started out by backing the doctors, but has now thought better of its public image, and retracted that support.

This ought to be a landmark case. Many countries around the world, including Sweden and Canada, have anti-discrimination laws. I believe California is one of a few states which have one. Already in Sweden, Australia, and Canada, pastors have been prosecuted (persecuted) for preaching against homosexuality, since this violates the hate-speech laws. (What an Orwellian word, “hate-speech.” How perfect.) It will be very interesting to see what the US courts make of a collision between anti-discrimination laws, and religious beliefs which dare to posit an absolute moral difference between certain kinds of behavior. Personally, I would not want to provide very extensive fertility treatment to any unmarried persons, let alone homosexuals. Certainly cover some basic health issues, such as PID, or polycystic ovary syndrome, which can cause infertility, and give basic advice; and certainly try to save any pregnancy that does result (eg in someone who has a history of late miscarriages). If I had any interest in the fertility sub-specialty, or in living in California, I would be even more concerned about this case. As it is, God knows I plan to work as far from this whole country as I can get, where there will be more serious legal issues than refusing to assist sinners in evading the natural consequences of their lifestyles.

But these homosexuals are so delicate. They loudly claim their own right to make any choices they want, without consequences – men to have sex and not get AIDs; women to avoid men, and still have children – but let a Christian doctor try to make a choice not to provide them with elective treatment, and they will sue you through every court in the country, all the way to the top. (There’s an even more basic issue here: This woman does not have a right to medical treatment, from anyone, anyway, regardless of sexual orientation or religious beliefs. But once admit healthcare as a right, and see where we can go.) (So you don’t misunderstand me, doctors have a humanitarian obligation to provide emergency care; but that’s different from someone having a right to it, or to non-emergent care.)