CA court says MDs can't discriminate against gays on religious grounds

30 years ago my brother worked for PHS Commissioned Corp, assigned to the PHS Hospital at SanFran, where they were assigned to the somewhat secret leprosy+xxx wards. A colleague requested "battle pay" and it took ten years of a class action case to establish the principle that even govt. doctors are entitled to be premiumly compensated for abnormal if not dangerous work. So I can reasonably see that California MDs would have the right to charge double for required unsavory [elective -- not emergency] medical work. Forgetting about the questionable morality of promoting a birth to a non-male-female couple.
Sam S

I am curious to see how this all works out when we have a one size fits all healthcare system in th. Does the doctor not have a right to treat whomever or refuse treatment for whomever. I don't recall artificial insermination being a life saving or mandatory procedure.

Once again the Supreme Court of CA has overstepped its authority. As was tacitly stated already, IUF is not an emergency medical procedure.
I could see if there were no infertility specialists in the whole state of CA who would perform the procedure for the couple, then there might be an issue. This is nothing but headhunting against a physician who does not support this couple's alternative lifestyle.

As a physician I believe I have the right to deny non-emergency care to individuals based on religious beliefs. I would offer to reimburse the patient any consultation fees and such other provider's who may comply with the individual's/couple's request.