Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled against two physicians who allegedly denied — based on their religious opposition — a legal medical treatment to a patient based on her sexual orientation. The decision was issued in a lawsuit filed by a lesbian against doctors in a Vista medical group who refused to artificially inseminate her. Did the ruling ban California citizens from having a moral conscience, or did it free them from religious domination by others?
Being a “conscientious objector” has a time-honored history here in the United States, usually in reference to service men and women during wartime and their unwillingness for moral reasons to participate in overt military action on the battlefield.
We have long respected one’s right to enter the military as a medic or in some other non-combatant capacity. Their roles are no less needed or important than those who willingly enter the battlefield as combatants.