Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The requirement to use a clinic really is discriminatory against poor people and those in non typical situations (F/F). The reason this is likely done is either they couldn't afford to go to a clinic or a clinic refused to do it because they were a lesbian couple. So in this way the current law is very unfair.
Intent is what should matter overall, it was the intent of the couple that the donor wasn't to have any liability and no one is disputing that. That should matter. For people who can't concieve and need to use these services cases like this make it more difficult to find doners, surrogetes, etc.
|
Is there any evidence of a clinic refusing them, or anyone else, on the basis of sexual orientation? If so that's the lawsuit that should have been filed.
As for financial means, while it is somewhat arbitrary in that sense I don't see any possible way a case can be made based upon that. There's no obligation for the state to provide access to a completely elective procedure such as this, and there is a strong public health basis for encouraging people to use approved means of having these procedures done. There are plenty of things that are too expensive for some people, that doesn't make them discriminatory. There are also plenty of laws that punish people who are too poor to comply with them, vehicle registration being a prime example.