1 The individual or group that had their rights infringed—who were they?
Single women and lesbian women or homosexual relationships are not entitled of IVF treatment because of their sexual orientation. Claiming that barring single women from the IVF program was discriminating against single women.
2 Which right(s) was infringed? How was the right(s) infringed?
Having the right to be able to receive IVF treatment no matter her married status. This right was infringed by only allowing women who are married to a man and living with a man to be able to receive the treatment. No single or lesbian women. Single women were being discriminated against and denied the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community and to share
…show more content…
Since Mr. McBain did not have standing, he funded Leesa Meldrum since the issue had directly affected her and she represented single and lesbian couples for their rights to be able to have IVF treatment.
4 What were the facts of the case?
Dr John McBain, a Melbourne gynaecologist specialising in reproductive technology, was consulted by Ms Leesa Meldrum, a single woman wishing to conceive through IVF using donor sperm. Leesa was prohibited by Victorian law from receiving IVF treatment, as she was single. Dr McBain then commenced proceedings seeking a declaration that provisions of the Victorian legislation were inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act.
5 What issues were in question? What point of view did the group/individual have on these issues?
The issue in question is should single or lesbian women be allowed to receive IVF treatment. The state of Victoria discriminates against single women and lesbians by having an opposing view on the issue, denying them of access to IVF. On the other hand, single and lesbian women want to be able to receive IVF but are denied of the treatment because of the Victorian Infertility Treatment Act 1995. Stating that in order to receive treatment, a woman must
…show more content…
This affected the women by causing an uproar in the community and angered women throughout the state. The women rebutted the case by using the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 which makes it unlawful for a person to refuse to provide a service to another person on the grounds of the latter person’s marital status.
7 Which groups/individuals had opposing views on the issues in this case? What were these views?
Single and lesbian women had opposing views on the law that denied them access to receive IVF treatment. The state was opposing the discrimination act to allow single or lesbian women to receive the treatment. The law changed to allow any women to receive IVF treatment but only if she is unable to conceive naturally. Therefore indirectly discriminating against single and lesbian women.
8 What was the outcome of the case? Who was successful? What did the judges