You claim that innocent children should not be subjected to the evils of homosexuality, and that homosexuals should never be allowed to even think of having children, and yet you want to put mentally challenged kids who need even more love and care than normal kids in these homes with, what was you said, "two selfish, narcissistic people going against nature." Now, how are two people who only think about themselves going to take care of a kid who has down syndrom. Obviously you do not care about those children who are mentally challenged, if you are willing to let unnatural fiends adopt them. You were probably one of those kids in school who laughed at and made fun of the mentally challenged kids.

Oh and speaking of the "going against nature," I'm sure you've never heard of an ape called the bonobo. Well, it does non-discriminating in its sex partners. Males have sex with males and females have sex with females, but they also have sex across generational boundaries. So, an animal that actively participates in homosexual behavior, it must be evil too, it must be destroyed. No. Animals are not evil. The bonobo is just a very interesting animal. And I am not saying because bonobos have sex with their family that is alright for us to do it. We are not animals who have to alleviate stress by grooming or having sex, we have the gift of language and culture.

You keep talking about God and how he hates homosexuals, but doesn't he also say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So you want to forbid homosexuals from having children, be my guest, but remember "what goes around comes around."

So, were I to have an unwanted pregnancy, and claimed I was a lesbian, would they give me an abortion?

If I went in wanting a tubal ligation (a procedure regularly refused to women under whatever "magic age" that particular doctor has decided), and claimed I was a lesbian, could I get one?

This whole situation sucks, but perhaps the clinic/doctor can be manipulated to SOMEONE's advantage...

Allowing doctors the ability to choose who they will assiste in fertility treatment is nothing short of the state issuing a license to practice eugenics.

Jessica posted the following comment:

"Actually, I am fine with gays adopting children, as long as the kids are so mentally retarded that they don't have the capacity to be psychologically damaged by living with two selfish, narcissistic people going against nature."

This is such a childish, inflamatory, ignorant, crazy, tiresome, Aryan, lock-jawed, Connecticuit/Stepford Wife type comment that it could have only come from one of the most irrelevant people on earth - ANN COULTER. Come on, admit that "Jessica" is not your real first name. Own up to who you really are and all of us sane people posting here will just ignore you, like we do when you're publishing under your real name. Surely you would be more comfortable around your own kind: HannityInsanity, Bill O'LIElly, and Druggie Limbaugh.

Apparently the name of the game here is "Guess the Crazies." I am laughing...

I've read NicoleShield's multiple letters in dismay. Certainly, individual doctors can assert the right not to perform a particular procedure (despite the inanity of comparing insemination to amputation). The issue, as I understand it, is the disturbing discrimination by the clinic and the insurance company. The article said that the patient had to go out of the network to pay for insemination. If every doctor at the clinic is morally opposed to inseminating an married lesbian, fine. But if that clinic is the only one in the insurance network, either the clinic or the insurance company should be required to pick up the tab for going out of the network.

I seriously doubt that the woman brought a lawsuit against the individual physicians. I seriously doubt that the law would hold physicians accountable for the policies of their employers. Title VII litigation claims against individual discriminators are regularly dismissed.

This flame war with Jessica is fascinating, but let's get back to the issue.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is bad enough, but the idea that it was legal to deny medical help on marital status shows this isn't an issue where gays and lesbians will be the only ones personally affected.

What we need here is a constitutional right to procreate, much the way the Supreme Court created a right to marry (not yet extended to gays) explicitly in 1969 when it struck down a ban on interracial marriage in Loving vs. Virginia.

There have been a whole host of other reasons that have been proposed to prohibit people from marrying--all of which could equally be given as reasons why doctors (or the state) might object on moral or personal grounds to providing medical help: An attempt by Wisconsin to prohibit people from marrying when one person owes child support; an attempt to prevent prisoners or ex-cons from marrying, if someone has a history as an alcoholic or drug addict, has been through a bankruptcy, if someone has been accused of child abuse or neglect. If someone has a history of adultery or was determined by the doctor or the state to be too poor--all could be given as reasons to refuse medical help to have a child.

Maybe Jessica wouldn't choose to prevent people from having kids for any of these reasons, but plenty of others (from all ends of the political spectrum) probably would.

I doubt the current Supreme Court will write opinions to extend Constitutional rights to the act of procreation. Lacking that, the goal should be achieved through democratic means, with legislation that goes deeply into the professions of doctors and pharmacists, forcing them to risk their licenses and certification if they refuse help to patients.

If doctors and pharmacists don't want the state micromanaging their professions more than they already do, then they should prevail upon members of their profession to keep their personal views to themselves. Suck it up and do your job.