Doctor refuses to treat lesbians' baby.

[RosyDaisy]

It's because they are listening to false prophets rather than reading their Bible.

[Cleopatra7]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the doctor refusing to treat the baby. The fact that she disapproves of homosexuality shouldn't have any relation to treating the baby, who is pre-sexual anyway and didn't choose her parents. I imagine that many doctors don't approve of various things that their patients do, from being anti-vaxx to not practicing safe sex, but they don't turn them away. This shows that this "religious freedom" thing is just a cover for legalized discrimination. It reminds me of a story Chris Rock told about his parents who were from South Carolina (I think). Back in the Jim Crow era, the only doctor in the town they were from that would treat black people was the veterinarian and when the white people found out about it, they stopped bringing their pets to that vet... :? :evil-eye: :shifty-kitty:

[doggie]

*Fundamentalist Christians

Presumably you are unaware that many Christians don't have a problem with gay people and that gay people can be Christians. Fundamentalist Christians are extremist. Just because they shout the loudest doesn't mean they speak for all of us.

of course I don't mean all Christians don't get yourself all worked up

[polecat]

of course I don't mean all Christians don't get yourself all worked up

*blinks*

All righty then.

[FundieWatcher]

I read some of the reviews. Before this scandal she had some very good reviews. It is a shame, she sounds hard-working. To bad about the bigotry.

[doggie]

*blinks*

All righty then.

there you go :D sorry I left out the word some. but I think on here we know when we say Christian and bad we know the type that we are talking bout.

[BrownieMomma]

This story reminds me of a local story of a Catholic priest who baptized a baby and the parents were lesbian. The way the priest explained it, he did it for the child, because (might have this theology a bit off) baptism saves the child's soul. He was not condoning the parent's homosexual lifestyle and no I have no idea why those ladies cared one whit about their child being baptized Catholic but they did.

The point is that it was all about benefit for the child, taking care of the child.

I don't understand why the doctor sees it differently than the priest.

I can more understand why, oh say, a Southern Baptist church might not allow a lesbian couple for baby dedication because that is about the parents publicly avowing to raise the child according to that belief. Baby dedication and infant baptism are not comparable.

The whole letter thing seems weird. Why would the doctor go to such lengths? Trying to avoid a lawsuit ? Because handwriting a letter seems about the dumbest thing to do if you are concerned you might get sued. Surely no attorney blessed that course of action.

And no records being kept. Oh please. We all know a file was made and retained, if for no other reason than accounting reasons. There are some kind of records of the prenatal visit, esp if any revenue was generated.

[Firiel]

*blinks*

All righty then.

polecat, your anger-filled correction was completely over-the-top. It's clear from what you wrote that you were raging (and likely throwing Bibles) while writing it, probably because you are on your period. Or else you are just an emotionally unstable human being in general which is not unlikely, seeing as you are a woman.

/sarcasm

(Sorry for the over-the-top reaction-- one of my pet peeves is people being tone-policed when they are not even communicating in the tone that is getting policed.)

[polecat]

polecat, your anger-filled correction was completely over-the-top. It's clear from what you wrote that you were raging (and likely throwing Bibles) while writing it, probably because you are on your period. Or else you are just an emotionally unstable human being in general which is not unlikely, seeing as you are a woman.

/sarcasm

(Sorry for the over-the-top reaction-- one of my pet peeves is people being tone-policed when they are not even communicating in the tone that is getting policed.)

Maybe. So basically, people need to back away slowly while hurling chocolate in my general direction.

Like a Snickers commercial.

:nenner:

[BrownieMomma]

Maybe. So basically, people need to back away slowly while hurling chocolate in my general direction.

Like a Snickers commercial.

:nenner:

Because you are Godzilla until you have a Snickers!

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the doctor refusing to treat the baby. The fact that she disapproves of homosexuality shouldn't have any relation to treating the baby

I think because it's contagious.

Thats all I've got.

[doggie]

Maybe. So basically, people need to back away slowly while hurling chocolate in my general direction.

Like a Snickers commercial.

:nenner:

[moodygirl86]

The baby didn't choose her parents, who didn't choose their sexuality. But the doctor chose her job, with the condition that she help anyone coming to her who needs it. And she's fucked up miserably. She needs to move to Saudi or some other country where gay-shaming is actually legal, instead of inflicting it on the citizens of Michigan.

[docmom]

So the law is pretty murky on this. Basically you can't be charged with abandonment (failure to treat a patient) unless you have established a relationship of care with the patient. Except in the case of emergency room care providers, a doctor is not legally required to provide treatment, even to someone in a life-threatening situation.

Under the law, therefore, a practitioner is not required to take on every potential patient who walks into his/her office. Doctors can refuse to see patients because they are unable to agree with the patient on a course of treatment or simply because their personalities clash.

A doctor’s ability to refuse patients, however, is not unlimited. The majority of states have “conscientious objection†laws, which allow doctors to refuse to perform certain procedures, particularly abortions, because of religious objections. Doctors’ attempts to refuse treatment to particular patients because of religious objections have been less successful. In 2008, for example, the California Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not permit doctors to use their Christian beliefs to deny care to an unmarried lesbian woman seeking fertility treatment. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court found that the “state’s compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment†outweighed the doctors’ rights to express their religious beliefs.

So, despite the lack of laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation in Michigan, the parents could file a suit based on full and equal access. I think they should try...

[Idolatry]

Wow. I thought this had to be a hoax, but no, this lady actually documented her bigotry. Bigots deserve to be publicly humiliated. Well done, ladies.

[Tootsie McSassafrass]

What about the Hippocratic Oath they swear upon once they became a doctor? If he lacks a heart, a brain and a conscience, what about the things he swore he'd do for people as a doctor?

Seriously? If you are a doctor, you should work with anyone who needs healthcare, nomatter who they are, and treat them all the same. That is what doctors do. Whether they are old or young, gay or straight, black or white, whether they are someone who was in a car accident or someone who ended up in hospital because they jumped out of a window trying to fly while high. Everyone deserves the same level of healthcare, which is for the doctor to do their best to ensure they are healthy.

I couldn't agree more, my opinions exactly! If this were only the case in the world today...

[Firiel]

So the law is pretty murky on this. Basically you can't be charged with abandonment (failure to treat a patient) unless you have established a relationship of care with the patient. Except in the case of emergency room care providers, a doctor is not legally required to provide treatment, even to someone in a life-threatening situation.

Under the law, therefore, a practitioner is not required to take on every potential patient who walks into his/her office. Doctors can refuse to see patients because they are unable to agree with the patient on a course of treatment or simply because their personalities clash.

A doctor’s ability to refuse patients, however, is not unlimited. The majority of states have “conscientious objection†laws, which allow doctors to refuse to perform certain procedures, particularly abortions, because of religious objections. Doctors’ attempts to refuse treatment to particular patients because of religious objections have been less successful. In 2008, for example, the California Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not permit doctors to use their Christian beliefs to deny care to an unmarried lesbian woman seeking fertility treatment. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court found that the “state’s compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment†outweighed the doctors’ rights to express their religious beliefs.

So, despite the lack of laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation in Michigan, the parents could file a suit based on full and equal access. I think they should try...

Thanks for posting this info! I figured that a doctor doesn't have to work with a patient (except for emergencies) because doctors fill up, have personality clashes, whatever. So I was wondering what protections were put in place against this kind of issue. And you posted it without me even asking because you're awesome. :)

[Idolatry]

Oh Boy! Looks like Michigan also has a bill pending that would allow EMTs to discriminate on sexual orientation too! Wouldn't want to do life-saving CPR on a gay.

(CBS News) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-would- ... -patients/

[polecat]

Oh Boy! Looks like Michigan also has a bill pending that would allow EMTs to discriminate on sexual orientation too! Wouldn't want to do life-saving CPR on a gay.

(CBS News) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-would- ... -patients/

Oh. My. God.

:shock:

[doggie]

I swear these people have thrown out the bible. where in the bible does it say your ideals are more important then someone that needs help? love thy neighbor unless he is gay watch him suffer and die bigotry 666.666

[Mama Mia]

So the law is pretty murky on this. Basically you can't be charged with abandonment (failure to treat a patient) unless you have established a relationship of care with the patient. Except in the case of emergency room care providers, a doctor is not legally required to provide treatment, even to someone in a life-threatening situation.

Under the law, therefore, a practitioner is not required to take on every potential patient who walks into his/her office. Doctors can refuse to see patients because they are unable to agree with the patient on a course of treatment or simply because their personalities clash.

A doctor’s ability to refuse patients, however, is not unlimited. The majority of states have “conscientious objection†laws, which allow doctors to refuse to perform certain procedures, particularly abortions, because of religious objections. Doctors’ attempts to refuse treatment to particular patients because of religious objections have been less successful. In 2008, for example, the California Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not permit doctors to use their Christian beliefs to deny care to an unmarried lesbian woman seeking fertility treatment. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court found that the “state’s compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment†outweighed the doctors’ rights to express their religious beliefs.

So, despite the lack of laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation in Michigan, the parents could file a suit based on full and equal access. I think they should try...

But discrimination based on sexual orientation was already illegal in California, while Michigan does not have similar protections.

Does anyone else find it really bizarre that marriage equality is progressing so quickly, while basic non-discrimination laws for sexual minorities regarding jobs, housing etc. are lagging?

I know marriage equality is often only being implemented in reluctant states due to federal judicial decisions. But why isn't the same thing happening with other civil rights? It seems so strange considering legally recognized sex marriage only started about 10 years ago ( in the U.S.).

But some individual states began including sexual orientation at least 20-25 years ago. Why is that?

This is outdated by a couple years, and only covers employment, but gives an easy to read breakdown of state status on page 3:

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-con ... nation.pdf

This, unfortunately, doesn't include dates, but you can click on different issues and see where states currently stand. It's pretty predictable -- west and east coast almost always --- plus, often, couple of southwest states and Great Lakes region ---have more comprehensive laws providing rights and protections based on sexual minority status. Deep South and mid- west -- virtually nothing.

http://www.hrc.org/state_maps

Off- topic-- but what are Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana considered?

[DGayle]

What about the Hippocratic Oath they swear upon once they became a doctor? If he lacks a heart, a brain and a conscience, what about the things he swore he'd do for people as a doctor?

It's not compulsory, like a lot of people think. No estimates on how many doctors take this oath, but it's personal, not official.

[DGayle]

Pretty sure it is illegal here. Dunno about the United states but here is illegal to discriminate because of a persons sexuality

The US is behind much of the world in a lot of things. Americans like to think we're ahead of the curve, but we're behind a lot of countries in gay rights, women's rights (even Iran has paid maternity leave), health care (many third-world countries see that as a right), breaking that glass ceiling (India's had a woman PM, and we haven't been able to get a woman within 5 steps of the top spot), and so on.

There are no federal bans on discriminating for sexuality. A lot of states still allow it.

'Mericah, fuck yeah....

[DGayle]

i would hope if this doc happens to be the only doc available in an emergency room that she would do her job. er's legally can't refuse patients, that's part of the regulations for being able to designate themselves as an emergency room. i guess she better thank her lucky stars she got into a private practice where she could exercise her discrimination...otherwise she might be forced to touch and treat a gayby :pink-shock:

ER docs have been known to hold back vital info, like telling a rape victim about a morning-after pill to help prevent a pregnancy. Being in the ER doesn't stop docs from finding ways to assert their religion over patient rights.

[Jezebel]

I transcribed the letter, both to spare everyone's eyesight as well as to make picking it apart here all the easier. So have at it, y'all...

Dear Jami & Krista,

I am writing this letter of apology as I feel that it is important and necessary. I never meant to hurt either one of you. After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients. I felt that was not fair to the two of you or to Bay. I felt that you deserved that type of relationship and I knew you could get that with Dr. Karam. We do not keep prenatal information once we have our meetings so I had no way to contact you. I found out on the Monday morning that you were coming and I made the decision that it would be better for Dr. Karam to see Bay. I felt that it was an exciting time for the two of you and I felt that if I came in and shared my decision it would take away much of the excitement. That was my mistake. I should not have made that assumption and I apologize for that. I should have spoken with you directly that day. You were always welcome in our office and I assumed you would continue care at our office with Dr. Karam. Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice.

Again, I am very sorry for the hurt and angry feelings that were created by this. I hope you can accept my apology. I wish you all the best. 

Blessings,

Dr. Vesna Roi

I'll say this: she "feels" a lot of things, but she she sure as hell didn't bother to do any thinking. She didn't bother to contact them before their appointment--even though she would have had their contact info available.

Now, it may be possible that particular office doesn't keep files on parents who simply came in for a pre-natal interview while looking for a pediatrician. But since these women had an appointment to bring their daughter in, that means they weren't doctor-shopping, any more--they were clients of that practice, which means that hell yes, there would have been contact info.

Dr. Roi chose not to inform this couple that she would not be their pediatrician. This wasn't an accident, or an oversight--she decided to shove that unpleasantness off onto her office staff and fellow doctor, rather than face these women herself. She should have called them, or emailed ahead of time.* And while it still would have been incredibly bad form to wait until they showed up for the appointment, she should have at least told them herself.

She didn't want to ruin their excitement? What the fuck? Is she even for real? That's beyond stupid. And frankly, it's a lie--the truth is, she was too much of a coward to face these women and tell them that she was too uncomfortable with their relationship. She prayed to God for guidance? She might want to start praying for the courage to actually stand in front of someone and explain that she's personally judging and rejecting them--and their children--because Jesus.

And then she has the nerve to say she would never judge anyone based upon what they did with their God-given free choice? That is an astounding bit of hypocrisy and total lack of self-awareness, right there. She judged those women, and decided they were not fit to be her clients, and refused to see their infant daughter as a patient.

Despite all the apologetic language in there, this isn't an apology at all. She's trying to smooth over hurt feelings and prevent an even bigger fuss with a bunch of half-baked excuses, and possibly some outright lies, and a steaming heap of weaselly self-justification. And then she tries turning the blame on the lesbian couple for making the wrong "free will choice." And God's on her side.

There is just so, so much that is wrong with this letter, and the woman who sat down and wrote it--ugh. No wonder I'm a cat lady; it makes perfect sense, given that people can be this flagrantly shitty.

*Yeah, she should have got the fuck over her bigotry, but clearly that's asking too much, here.