Under California Law a religious hospital does not have to perform any procedure that would go against the tenants of their faith.  Meant in the original to keep people from forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, its going to cover this too.  Its really going to make a difference in that a hospital that would perform this operation is less than five miles away.  It really looks a lot like law suit mining,

Really?
Bummer.
Oh well, I was glad I posted that anyway.
It provides a different perspective than the Trans bashing ones that were going on there.

Like I said, "consider the source."

Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2008, 06:21:10 PM
Under California Law a religious hospital does not have to perform any procedure that would go against the tenants of their faith.  Meant in the original to keep people from forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, its going to cover this too.  Its really going to make a difference in that a hospital that would perform this operation is less than five miles away.  It really looks a lot like law suit mining,

                   The difference in this case is this hospital regularly performs breast augmentation surgeries. BA is not something the hospital refuses to do like an abortion. The law covers procedures they refuse to do, not who gets the procedures. They don't have the right to deny a transsexual woman and they should have their tight butts sued.


beth

I doubt that you will find 12 people in the Bay Area who will find for forcing a private institution to do anything (or else guys could sue to join Dykes on Bikes).  Cali is pretty big on keeping the decisions of private institutions private in that sense.  Moreover, I'm guessing that the hospital has lawyers stacked 12 high in a holding pattern.  Unless she has a "John Edwards" style lawyer, her chances are slim.  She needs a Gloria Allred, and so far, does not have one.

Quote from: beth on January 20, 2008, 07:14:34 PM

Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2008, 06:21:10 PM
Under California Law a religious hospital does not have to perform any procedure that would go against the tenants of their faith.  Meant in the original to keep people from forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, its going to cover this too.  Its really going to make a difference in that a hospital that would perform this operation is less than five miles away.  It really looks a lot like law suit mining,

                   The difference in this case is this hospital regularly performs breast augmentation surgeries. BA is not something the hospital refuses to do like an abortion. The law covers procedures they refuse to do, not who gets the procedures. They don't have the right to deny a transsexual woman and they should have their tight butts sued.


beth

i concord and apparently she's suing:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080120/NEWS01/841107121

good for her!

making a catholic hospital perform BA on a TRANSWOMAN is the clincher... they dont like ->-bleeped-<-s.... not BA... the beef is her chromasomes, not breasts....
you wont be able to FORCE them to break religon, cant she go elsewhere ffs instead of making a huge fuss?
R >

The local coverage, as opposed to NH, is very different.  At any rate, lawsuits are not about right and wrong, they are about good and better lawyers - for the most part.

Her is a link to her story with picture,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323791,00.html


In the US private doctors contract with hospitals to do surgeries. This womans doctor does his surgeries at this particular hospital. Even though she has had SRS they refuse to admit her for BA.

You know, its not there were not, or are not other options.  That is critical in determination of the case.  That has been the finding several times on the abortion issue.  As long as there are other options, then there is no case. 

Anyway, the people I know who really want quality work in this area, go to LA where they do boobs like  the emergency ward in Detroit does gunshots on a Friday night.

I do not see the reason to do this at all.  There was more than one choice open here.  It looks more like she was looking for an easy lawsuit then the work.

bit like a woman in the UK recently, who sued a company for not hireing her, she claimed trans discrimination... just after money...
R

OH MY GOD, I'm in agreement with Rachael.  Give me a sec, I have to see if the earth is still spinning and going around the sun.

cheeky mare....
R >

I work with way too many people who ask "ay mate, you got a ->-bleeped-<-" which I think in England means something different than it does in San Fran.

Of course, there are the  Scotsmen, who want the box to go "ouut 'n aboot" which we think means "out and about.'  But we're still not sure.  Two "common cultures, separated by a common language" as they say.

But I will think 'cheeky" is good.  If it's not, don't tell me.  Please don't tell me.

uk and us comparason dont work... its two entirely different countries, they just speak the same language....
the aboot thing is accent... oot an aboot is 'out and about, like you said
and ->-bleeped-<- does mean cig here too....
R

So how do we find out about all these lawsuits anyways?

Did the hospital go and tattle or did the ->-bleeped-<-?

Or did some wormy news reporter hide in wait in the ceiling of the plastic surgeon until he dug up something, I bet he was hoping for a celebrity.

Lol, Micheal Jackson gets a boob job!

Her LAWYER did the press releases, contacted the media, gave interviews.

And for the most part, US vs. US comparisons don't even work.  Its too big, too different from region to region, East Coast, West Coast, South, Midwest, and even within states, the A1A culture on the east coast of FL is not at all like the Panhandle, LA is not SF (LA is not like anything else) NYC has a lot in common with Chicago, but not Miami - and on. 

And '->-bleeped-<-' in SF does not have anything to do with smoking at all.  Our rather standard answer to 'got a ->-bleeped-<- mate' is "Well, there is John, but your not his type."  Then we give him a cigarette and remind him that this is California, and the nearest indoor smoking area is in Nevada.  And even then, there are lots of places - outdoors - in SF where you can't smoke.

heh, stick to offering him a cigarette, british people dont take gay humour too well
R >

Quote from: tekla on January 20, 2008, 06:21:10 PM
Under California Law a religious hospital does not have to perform any procedure that would go against the tenants of their faith.  Meant in the original to keep people from forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, its going to cover this too.  Its really going to make a difference in that a hospital that would perform this operation is less than five miles away.  It really looks a lot like law suit mining,

The fallacy in your logic is that Seton doesn't permit MDs to perform abortions on anyone for any reason.  They do permit BAs to be performed on a regular basis on genetic females.  I'm assuming that the plaintiff has gone to court and been granted a legal change of name and gender.  In the eyes of the law that makes her equal to all women. Denial of the procedure is the equivalent of saying "Yes, we do BAs but not on black women".

Seton was chosen because the plaintiff's surgeon has surgical privileges there and not at other local hospitals.

BTW, IMHO Chicago is nothing like New York City!

Chicago and New York are more like each other then they are like Omaha, or Denver, or New Orleans (pre-Katrina), they at least share some pretty common aspects: weather, built up not out, hysterical civic politics.  Granted there is nothing like Mid-Town Manhattan anywhere - and outside of the more bombed over sections of Baghdad, nothing like some parts of the Bronx either.  In the same way that Seattle and SF have a lot in common, more so then either have with LA, more than anyplace has with Salt Lake City.

And the Brit roadies are a pretty hardy breed.  They can take a joke pretty well.  And what's being in SF worth (other than a trip to the pot club) without a gay joke, or fifty.  If it was not for off-color sexual remarks about each other we would have to talk about music, and we don't want to do that.

Bet me its no sort of landmark case, they will settle out of court, with no admission of guilt for an 'undisclosed sum.'