California decision on religious conscience and medicine

Here is the opinion in the North Coast Women's Medical Care Group case.  According to Bill Duncan, of the Marriage Law Foundation,

The California Supreme Court has just issued a unanimous opinion that a doctor who refused, because of religious objections, to provide a specific artificial insemination procedure for a woman in a same-sex couple (he referred her to another physician) cannot claim a constitutional religious exemption to the state statute banning discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." The court said that even under the highest level of protection of religious liberty, the doctor would lose because the state has a "compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation, and there are no less restrictive means for the state to achieve that goal." One justice said that interest includes ensuring "a right to full medical assistance in establishing a pregnancy."

(HT:  Kathryn Lopez)

So, does the state's "compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of [sex]" override a medical professional's religiously based objection to performing an abortion?