WASHINGTON, D.C. – An Orthodox Jewish woman who was fired
from her job at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for observing
Passover is asking the nation’s highest court to hear her case. Last month,
in Abeles v. Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority,
Susan Abeles appealed to the Supreme Court to hold her former employer
accountable for unjustly firing her from her job of 26 years for observing
the first two and last two days of Passover. A ruling from the high court
could protect the right of all religious federal employees to live their
faith without fear of losing their jobs.
Susan Abeles was a statistician at the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), the government agency that operates
both Reagan National and Dulles International Airports, for 26 years. She
observed Passover every year without incident until 2013, when she was
punished and forced to retire despite following leave protocol. Today, Becket
and Jews for Religious Liberty, an association of Jewish lawyers and rabbis,
filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Supreme Court
to hear Ms. Abeles’ case, arguing that the lower court decision “will inhibit
Jewish religious exercise within the federal workplace and could easily
result in a de facto government hiring ban on Orthodox Jews.”
“Talk about chutzpah,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general
counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm. “The Airports
Authority says it was okay to fire Ms. Abeles for observing Passover because
it hasn’t said anything openly anti-Semitic. If that becomes the rule, then
federal agencies will have a license to terminate all of their religious
employees, as long as they are careful to hide their tracks. Even Pharaoh
honestly admitted that he was discriminating against Jews.”
Jewish religious law prohibits work during the first two
and last two days of Passover. Millions of Orthodox Jews like Ms. Abeles have
observed this important holiday for thousands of years. Despite following the
MWAA’s leave policy for decades, Ms. Abeles was accused of not following
protocol and forced into retirement in 2013. She sued the MWAA, which claims
it is exempt from both the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
and the Virginia religious freedom laws, giving it free rein to avoid all
anti-discrimination laws. In July 2017 Ms. Abeles asked the Supreme Court to
hear her case.
“The Airports Authority claiming to be above the law adds
insult to injury,” said Rassbach. “The Supreme Court should take this case to
ensure that people of all faiths can observe their deeply held beliefs in the
federal workplace without facing discrimination or being forced out of their
jobs.”
Ms. Abeles is represented by Nathan Lewin of Lewin &
Lewin.
Additional Information:
Becket’s Amicus Brief (August 28, 2017)
Case Page for Abeles v. Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA)
(all legal docs, press releases, news, images)
Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm
dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious
traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme
Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all
faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native
Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).
|
Faith on Trial is where we examine the influence of law and society on people of faith. Here we will look at those cases and events that impinge on the rights of people to fully practice their faith. Faith on Trial is heard every Saturday at 2 p.m. and Sunday at 9 p.m. on the Iowa Catholic Radio Network and anytime on our podcast at : https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Fired for observing Passover, Jewish woman asks Supreme Court to hear her case; Becket to SCOTUS: Federal agencies must respect their employees’ right to observe religious holidays
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Emergency national collection to assist people affected by Hurricane Harvey
WASHINGTON—Archbishop José H.
Gomez of Los Angeles, vice-president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
(USCCB) has called on the bishops to consider taking up a special collection to
support victims of Hurricane Harvey and to provide pastoral and rebuilding
support to impacted dioceses.
In an August 28 letter, Archbishop Gomez requested that the collection be held during the weekend of September 2-3 or September 9-10.
“Our hearts and prayers go out to the families that have lost loved ones and to all who have lost homes and businesses along with their sense of peace and normalcy,” said Archbishop Gomez. “We also stand with our brother bishops in the region who have the difficult task of providing pastoral care in these most trying times while managing their own losses. Our prayerful and financial support is urgently needed.”
Funds given to the collection will support the humanitarian and recovery efforts of Catholic Charities USA and will provide pastoral and rebuilding support to impacted dioceses through the USCCB. The hurricane has affected southeast Texas, including the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, and could also strike Louisiana. As a result, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of USSCB, has asked Archbishop Gomez to coordinate this effort.
“Together with Cardinal DiNardo and the bishops throughout the affected region I express deep gratitude to the first responders and countless volunteers who are assisting the Gulf Coast region in countless ways,” Archbishop Gomez said.
This collection is to be taken on the weekend alternate to the CUA Collection. For more information on how to participate contact your local diocese or visit: https://catholiccharitiesusa.org/
In an August 28 letter, Archbishop Gomez requested that the collection be held during the weekend of September 2-3 or September 9-10.
“Our hearts and prayers go out to the families that have lost loved ones and to all who have lost homes and businesses along with their sense of peace and normalcy,” said Archbishop Gomez. “We also stand with our brother bishops in the region who have the difficult task of providing pastoral care in these most trying times while managing their own losses. Our prayerful and financial support is urgently needed.”
Funds given to the collection will support the humanitarian and recovery efforts of Catholic Charities USA and will provide pastoral and rebuilding support to impacted dioceses through the USCCB. The hurricane has affected southeast Texas, including the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, and could also strike Louisiana. As a result, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of USSCB, has asked Archbishop Gomez to coordinate this effort.
“Together with Cardinal DiNardo and the bishops throughout the affected region I express deep gratitude to the first responders and countless volunteers who are assisting the Gulf Coast region in countless ways,” Archbishop Gomez said.
This collection is to be taken on the weekend alternate to the CUA Collection. For more information on how to participate contact your local diocese or visit: https://catholiccharitiesusa.org/
Monday, August 28, 2017
Attorneys argue that right-to-parent trumps property treatment of human embryos in Colorado embryo custody case
Thomas More Society files brief for pro-life
Ob-Gyns supporting mom
(August 28, 2017 – Denver) Thomas More Society attorneys have filed an amicus curiae
(“friend of the court”) brief in a controversial Colorado embryo custody case.
On behalf of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the nonprofit public interest law firm submitted documents to
the Colorado Supreme Court supporting Mandy Rooks, the mother of six
cryopreserved babies. The embryos are those remaining in cryogenic storage
after in-vitro fertilization procedures which allowed Ms. Rooks to deliver a
son, and later twins, while married to Drake Rooks, the children’s father.
Despite the couple’s divorce, Ms. Rooks wants to keep the babies for future
implantation. Her now ex-husband has asked to the court to deliver the six
embryos to him for destruction.
Attorney Rita Gitchell, Thomas More Society Special Counsel, spoke
to one of the primary issues in the submitted amicus brief. “The appellate
court erred in adopting a ‘balance of interest’ approach and treating the
preserved human embryos as marital property in the divorce. Current science has
established that these embryonic children are the result of procreation and are
not property.” For that reason, any balancing of interests must include
the interest in continued life of the living embryonic human beings.
Gitchell added, “Neither
the appellate or lower district court cited any law that permits the court to
terminate the life of a human being without a compelling reason. For those who
argue that Roe v. Wade permits termination of an unborn child during
pregnancy, but that does not apply when a mother desires to give birth to her
child. Because Mandy Rooks wants to bring her embryonic children to birth, Roe
is inapplicable to this case. Roe does not grant a father the right to
terminate his genetic embryonic child to avoid procreation, which has already
occurred.”
Gitchell also criticized
existing legal precedents that fail to recognize these human embryos as human
beings with identifiable parents. “These children were created intentionally
with the participation of both Ms. Rooks and her husband. They deliberately
conceived these biological offspring with the intention of bringing them to
birth. Their mother has the right to carry out their intention to bear,
raise and protect them, even if their father has decided he no longer wishes to
do so,” explained Gitchell. Colorado law supports this position because it
allows a father to relinquish legal parenthood under the facts of this case.
This does not affect the mother’s parental rights over the embryos.
Read the amicus curiae submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court in Rooks
v. Rooks by Thomas More Society attorneys on behalf of the American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, here.
The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring
respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in
Chicago and Omaha, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by
providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the
way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.
Medical experts aree that Surrogacy is harmful for mothers and children
Thomas More Society Files United States Supreme Court Brief
Detailing Dangers
(August
28, 2017 – Washington, DC)
Gestational surrogacy, when a woman carries a baby in her womb for others, is
harmful to mothers and children, according to an amicus curiae (“friend
of the court”) brief filed by the Thomas More Society in the United States
Supreme Court. The filing was on behalf of five medical ethics advocacy
organizations: the American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the National
Catholic Bioethics Center, the National Association of Catholic Nurses – U.S.A,
and the Catholic Medical Association.
The brief, which was filed by the
Thomas More Society in the California surrogacy dispute M.C. v. C.M.,
highlights an array of troubling medical issues brought about through
surrogacy. The petitioning organizations describe a voluminous and ever-growing
body of medical research showing that surrogacy poses serious medical risks to
both surrogate mothers and the children they carry.
Key concerns addressed in the filing
include:
- Surrogate birthmothers endure even
greater physical burdens than pregnant women who conceive spontaneously.
- Infants conceived by surrogacy are at
higher risk of adverse outcomes and fetal anomalies than infants conceived
spontaneously.
- Multiple embryo transfers increase the
risks to infants conceived by in-vitro
fertilization.
- Children conceived by in-vitro
fertilization have higher rates of birth defects, genetic disorders, and
other anomalies.
- Severance of the maternal-child bond harms both mother and child.
Thomas More Society Special Counsel
Sarah Pitlyk explained that, in addition to the physical health risks for the
gestational mother and child, the practice of surrogacy has grave effects on
society. “Surrogacy diminishes respect for motherhood and the unique
mother-child bond, encourages exploitation of women, and it commodifies
pregnancy and children,” she shared, adding that, “Surrogacy also weakens
society’s natural abhorrence of eugenic abortion.”
Pitlyk stated, “Any medical practice
that exploits and commodifies vulnerable members of the human family is of
concern to our client organizations and their membership. They share the common
goal of ensuring that the medical profession promotes human dignity and adheres
to its foundational commitment to ‘do no harm.’”
Read the Amicus Curiae Brief
submitted August 25, 2017, to the United
States Supreme Court by the Thomas More Society on behalf of the American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Charlotte Lozier
Institute, the National Catholic Bioethics Center, the National Association of
Catholic Nurses – U.S.A., and the Catholic Medical Association here.
The Thomas More
Society is a national not-for-profit law
firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious
liberty. Headquartered in Chicago and Omaha, the Thomas More Society fosters
support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from
local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more
information, visit http://www.thomasmoresociety.org/.
Next FOT: Aborting babies to eradicate Down syndrome; promoting abortion with sex toys
Dr. Brian Clowes Human Life International |
Dr. Clowes will discuss with us the recent effort by
Iceland to eradicate Down syndrome by aborting babies. Since 1995, he has been HLI’s director of
research, and is one of the most accomplished and respected intellectuals in
the international pro-life movement. Best known as author of the most
exhaustive pro-life informational resource volume The Facts of Life, and for
his Pro-Life Basic Training Course, Brian is the author of nine books, over 90
scholarly and popular articles, and has traveled to 50 countries on six
continents as a pro-life speaker, educator and trainer.
Brian and his wife, Kathleen, have seven children and
combined have over 50 years of pro-life experience, ranging from rescues,
sidewalk counseling to counseling pregnant women and assisting in litigation
against abortionists.
Abby Johnson has always had a fierce determination to
help women in need. It was this
desire that led her to a career with Planned
Parenthood, and caused her to flee the organization and become an outspoken
advocate for the pro-life movement. During her eight years with Planned
Parenthood, Abby quickly rose in the organization’s ranks and became a clinic
director. She was increasingly disturbed by what she witnessed.
Abby Johnson And Then There Were None |
Today, Abby travels across the globe sharing her story,
educating the public on pro-life issues, advocating for the unborn, and reaching
out to abortion clinic staff who still work in the industry. She is the founder
of And Then There Were None, a ministry designed to assist abortion clinic
workers out of the industry. To date, this ministry has helped over 300 workers
leave the abortion industry. Abby lives in Texas with her husband and five
precious children.
So join Deacon Mike Manno and Pam Briddell Tuesday at 10
a.m. (Central) on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming
on IowaCatholicRadio.com. The program will be rebroadcast at 10 p.m. Iowa
Catholic Radio also has a free downloadable from the app store so you can hear
us anywhere. Prior programs can be found here.
FOT is on the air courtesy of our loyal sponsors: Confluence Brewing Company – off the Bike
Trail just south of Grey’s Lake, 1235 Thomas Beck Road where there is live entertainment
in the tap room every Thursday; and Robert Cota, Farm Bureau Financial Services, 200 West 2nd Ave., Indianola, Iowa 50125, 515-961-4555 or
515-205-5642.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Washington State florist seeks protection of free expression rights from US Supreme Court
Thomas More Society supports shop owner who refused to
celebrate homosexual marriage
(August 25, 2017 – Washington, DC) The invitation to “say it with flowers” has proved
problematic for a Washington state florist who is asking the United States
Supreme Court to review her case. The Thomas More Society has filed an amicus
curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the request for review
by Baronnelle Stutzman, floral designer and owner of Arlene’s Flowers in
Richland, Washington. Stutzman was sued by a long-time customer when she
declined his request to create floral arrangements for the celebration of his
marriage to another man.
As
a committed Christian, Stutzman believes that marriage is meant to be between
one man and one woman. This presented a problem when she was asked to use her
art of custom floral design to participate in and celebrate a marriage ceremony
that would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs. Stutzman believes her
First Amendment right to freedom of speech protects her against being compelled
to create artistic expression for an event that contravenes her religious
beliefs.
The
Washington State Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed a ruling punishing the
71-year old Stutzman for running her business according to her faith. In 2015,
the trial court found that Stutzman had violated the Washington Law Against
Discrimination and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Stutzman has
been ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, actual damages in an undetermined amount,
and attorneys’ fees and costs expected to total hundreds of thousands of
dollars. She can also no longer operate her business according to her beliefs
without risking further legal sanction. The small-town florist is now seeking
justice and validation of her constitutionally protected rights from the
highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court.
Joan
Mannix, Thomas More Society Special Counsel, stated that the United States
Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals have consistently
recognized that the First Amendment affords expansive protection to all forms
of expression, including nonverbal art forms, including painting, music and
dance.
“There
is extensive case law to support this and the idea that an artist's
self-expression is protected regardless of whether the resulting works clearly
express a particularized message,” stated Mannix. “Baronnelle Stutzman’s custom
floral arrangements are a nonverbal medium of artistic expression. Her
arrangements, especially those for wedding ceremonies, are designed to deliver
an expressive message, consistent with the personalities of the couple,
approving of and celebrating their marriage, and are therefore entitled to
First Amendment protection.”
Mannix
added that one reason it is so important for the United States Supreme Court to
accept the case for review is because the Washington Supreme Court adopted a
narrow construction of the First Amendment that disregards numerous cases
holding that nonverbal art forms constitute pure “speech” within the meaning of
the First Amendment, despite the fact that those art forms do not employ actual
words.
Stutzman,
explained why she gave her longstanding client referrals to three other
florists when asked to create custom floral arrangements for his wedding to
another man: “If all he’d asked for were prearranged flowers, I’d gladly have
provided them.” “If the celebration were for his partner’s birthday, I’d have
been delighted to pour my best into the challenge. But as a Christian, weddings
have a particular significance…(he) was asking me to choose between my
affection for him and my commitment to Christ...my relationship with Jesus is
everything to me.”
Read
the amicus brief filed August 21, 2017, with the United States Supreme Court in Arlene's Flowers, Inc. v. State of Washington, U. S.
Supreme Court, Docket No. 17-108, here.
About the Thomas More
Society
The Thomas More Society is a
national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for
life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago and Omaha, the
Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality
pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United
States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Thomas More Society Announces Its New Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Andrew Bath
Brings to the Thomas More Society Expertise as the Top Legal Officer of a Large,
National Nonprofit, as Well as a Long Commitment to Life, Family, and Religious
Liberty
(August
24, 2017 – Chicago/Omaha) Andrew M. Bath has joined the Thomas More Society as
Executive Vice President and General
Counsel, after serving for many years in the same position with Boys Town, the
world-famous organization founded by Fr. Edward J. Flanagan, with facilities
across the nation for at-risk youth.
“We are delighted Andy Bath has
agreed to move into a key leadership role at the Thomas More Society,” said Tom
Brejcha, Thomas More Society founder, President, and Chief Counsel. “With his
experience running the legal department of a large, national nonprofit, as well
as his national connections, he will be an enormous asset for the Thomas More
Society. This is a great step forward.”
Mr. Brejcha continued, “Andy also
has a long commitment to our issues. He has been active in the pro-life
movement for over 30 years. In fact, he was the Chairman of the Board of the
Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee when he practiced law in
Milwaukee. He has long been an active member of the Heritage Foundation in
Washington, D.C. Andy has consulted on many nationally significant cases in
recent years involving issues of life and religious freedom. And he has a
working relationship with many of the top lawyers in the country in these
areas.”
“Andy understands the crucial
importance of protecting our God-given rights under the law,” said Mr. Brejcha.
Mr. Bath remarked, “I am honored to
have joined one of the preeminent guardians of life, family, and religious
freedom under the law. It is a privilege to work with these great lawyers and
to help protect the inalienable rights of those whose lives and freedoms are
threatened.”
Ann Scheidler, Founding Director and
Chairman of the Board at the Thomas More Society, added, “We are excited to
have Mr. Bath step into this position. His nationwide prominence will help
propel the Thomas More Society even further into the spotlight as we work to
defend personal and religious liberties on the national stage.”
Mr. Bath has worked as a Special
Counsel with the Thomas More Society on particular matters since 2013 and
formally assumed his new position earlier this year.
In private practice, Mr. Bath
concentrated on civil litigation and corporate law. He earned his Juris Doctor
degree at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, after
earning a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. View Andrew M. Bath’s official biography here.
About
the Thomas More Society: The
Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring
respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty.
Headquartered in Chicago and Omaha, the Thomas More Society fosters support for
these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial
courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information,
visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.
Monday, August 21, 2017
College students losing faith and abortion bubble zones in Chicago: Next FOT
Are college students losing their
faith? Will sidewalk counselors be able to help Chicago women facing the choice
of abortion? We’ll take up these two issues Tuesday on Faith On Trial.
Jeremy Story Pres. Campus Renewal |
A recent report by Campus Renewal Ministries indicates that up to 70 % of college students leave their faith. Why
does that happen and what can be down about it? We’ll discuss this with Jeremy
Story, president of Campus Reform Ministries. Jeremy has worked in campus
ministries for 21 years and has worked with hundreds of campuses and
non-profits, including the National Day of Prayer and the Collegiate Day of
Prayer.
In addition we’ll have back Thomas
Olp, senior counsel and co-executive director of the Thomas More Society to
discuss his recent filing to a federal appeals court to protect the free speech
rights of sidewalk counselors outside of abortion clinics. The City of Chicago has
an ordinance prohibiting such counseling within 50 feet of a clinic. The suit
is brought on behalf of Veronica Price and several other counselors.
The city has claimed that the
counselors harass women attempting to enter clinics, but Olp
and his clients
dispute that. “Contrary to pro-abortion propaganda, pro life counselors do not
intimidate women,” Olp said. “The Chicago bubble zone ordinance deliberately curtails
our clients’ first Amendment rights.”
Thomas Olp Thomas More Society |
Join Deacon Mike Manno and Pam
Briddell at 10 a.m. (Central) on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5
FM to hear a discussion of these and other issues of interest to people of
faith. FOT can also be heard on our
downloadable app and it streams on the stations’ website IowaCatholicRadio.com.
It will be re-broadcast at 10 p.m. and earlier programs may be heard at this link.
Faith
On Trial is on the air courtesy of our sponsors and underwriters: Confluence Brewing Company – off the Bike Trail just south of Grey’s Lake, 1235 Thomas
Beck Road where there is live entertainment in the tap room every Thursday; and
Robert Cota, Farm Bureau Financial Services, 200 West 2nd Ave.,
Indianola, Iowa 50125, 515-961-4555 or 515-205-5642, and faithful listeners
like you.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
The story of Dr. Paul Church and his battle for science against political correctness
This morning our first guest, Brian Camenker, executive director of
MassResistance, told the story of Boston Dr. Paul Church. Below is the article
Brian penned about the controversy. We’re reprinting this with permission of
Brian and MassResistance. To save space we’ve deleated the photos, but we have
kept the copy of Dr. Church’s exhibit from the CDC.
Standing on principle while under pressure to repudiate facts.
GREAT VIDEO: "The great lies and the cost of telling the truth." Dr. Paul Church describes his unbelievable ordeal -- and the dangers the medical community is ignoring. At the MassResistance Luncheon on 4/9/17.
This is one of the exhibits from the federal CDC website that Dr. Church presented to defend his position. It was ignored.
*****
Dr.
Paul Church now expelled from four Boston area hospitals – over comments to
colleagues at one hospital about its promotion of unhealthy, high-risk LGBT
lifestyle.Standing on principle while under pressure to repudiate facts.
The ideological corruption in the medical
profession defies belief.
August 7, 2017GREAT VIDEO: "The great lies and the cost of telling the truth." Dr. Paul Church describes his unbelievable ordeal -- and the dangers the medical community is ignoring. At the MassResistance Luncheon on 4/9/17.
The horrific treatment of Dr. Paul Church has
become a nightmare – affecting him, of course, but ultimately all of us as
well. Because he told the medical truth and refused to bow to political
correctness on this critical public health issue, he has now been banned from
four prominent Boston area hospitals and a urology clinic.
This is the frightening state of today’s medical
profession.
Dr. Church is a urologist who was on the staff
of several major Boston area hospitals and clinics for nearly 30 years. He was
on the faculty of Harvard Medical School. He has done research on diagnosing
prostate and bladder cancer, and has spoken to educational and civic groups on
the subject of high-risk sexual behaviors.
In 2015, as we reported, Dr. Church was expelled from
the staff of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) where he had
worked for 28 years. The reason? His comments to colleagues that homosexuality
is medically unhealthy and that a hospital should not be promoting and
celebrating that behavior in “gay pride” events and other hospital-sponsored
activities.
Subsequently, he was expelled from two more Boston area hospitals, Brigham
& Women’s Faulkner, where also had worked for 28 years, and Beth
Israel Deaconess-Needham, where had worked for over six years. Both
hospitals admitted that they did not expel Dr. Church because of anything he
said or did at those hospitals. He had a perfect performance record. They
expelled him because of his original comments made at BIDMC.
After being expelled by the three hospitals, Dr.
Church needed a hospital for patient referrals. A fourth hospital, St.
Elizabeth’s in Boston, made
an offer in 2016 to bring Dr. Church onto their staff, but then abruptly
cancelled it. He had been approved by hospital officials all the way up the
ladder to join St. Elizabeth’s. Contracts had been signed and even business
cards had been printed up. But as he was about to start work, he was informed
that they had disapproved his credentialing. The administrators cited “other
disputes” and his hiring was cancelled. Dr. Church later found out that
hospital officials feared repercussions by the LGBT community for his views
expressed at BIDMC.
He has also been dismissed from an independent
urology clinic. In addition to the four
hospitals, Dr. Church was asked to leave the staff of Men’s Health
Boston, a urology clinic where he had been in practice for more
than 10 years. He was told that the reason was his dispute at BIDMC. They told
him, “We don’t agree with what you’re doing,” and that the BIDMC issue would be
“bad for business.”
At no time throughout his career had Dr. Church
ever been accused of any discrimination in his treatment of patients, nor had
there been any complaints at all from patients.
Currently, Dr. Church continues to see some
patients at a private office in suburban Boston. But without hospital staff
privileges, he can no longer do hospital work or perform needed surgeries
himself. His livelihood has been significantly impacted as a result.
The medical profession is out of control
What is going on?
Most people don’t realize how extensively the
medical profession is ignoring critical medical and public health risks in
favor of outrageous LGBT political correctness, and has even incorporated that
ideology into their institutions.
All the major Boston hospitals now participate
in the annual “Gay Pride Week” – a public display of sexual and emotional dysfunction. They also
heavily promote LGBT events and issues internally.
And now we’re reeling from the transgender
phenomenon, especially its terrible abuse of children in schools and by medical
and mental health professionals. But the medical profession refuses to deal
with this issue honestly.
Dissent regarding LGBT issues is not tolerated,
even regarding medical facts. As Dr. Church observes, the medical community
doesn’t care about the dangers, and is willing to accept the collateral damage
their silence brings.
Information such as that contained in MassResistance’s
book documenting the LGBT health hazards is almost completely absent
from today’s medical facilities.
Instead, the medical establishment now promotes
homosexuality as being natural and healthy. Deviant sexual practices are
equated with normal heterosexual behaviors. We’re now being told that it’s only
a problem when homosexuals engage in “unprotected sex”.
This unethical approach is good for business.
While throwing their unconditional support
behind the LGBT movement, the hospitals also work hard to attract the “LGBT
community” as patients. Major hospitals now cater to the wide range of
“unusual” health issues resulting from common LGBT sexual practices and
lifestyle. At the same, they advertise that they are providing LGBT patients a
“safe” environment – safe from any information that might disturb their
proclivities.
How it all started: At BIDMC Dr. Church told the truth
It all started at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center (BIDMC).
As we reported in 2015, Dr. Church brought up his
concerns internally, to BIDMC hospital officials and staff, not publicly.
He cited irrefutable medical evidence that
high-risk sexual practices common to the LGBT community lead to (among other
things) a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS, STD's, hepatitis, parasitic infections,
anal cancers, and psychiatric disorders. Promoting such behavior, he said, is
contrary to the higher mission of the healthcare facility to protect the public
welfare and encourage healthy lifestyles.
BIDMC never disputed the truth of Dr. Church’s
medical statements. They did not claim that Dr. Church ever discussed this with
patients, or treated patients any differently if they were involved in these
behaviors.
Instead Dr. Church was told that his admonitions
about homosexual behavior constituted “discrimination and harassment,” were
“offensive to BIDMC staff,” and could not be tolerated.
In March, 2015, the hospital notified him he was being formally
expelled from the staff. The appeal process, which lasted until December
2015, included detailed testimony by Dr. Church and other medical experts
supporting him. The expulsion was ultimately upheld by the hospital’s Board of
Directors. Members of the hospital’s “LGBT community” (a so-called “protected
class” in Massachusetts) claimed they were “offended” by Dr. Church’s remarks
about the medical consequences of typical LGBT sexual practices and behaviors.
Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital accuses Dr. Church of
using “bad medicine”
In November, 2015, even before BIDMC had completed its appeal
process, Dr. Church was notified by Boston’s Brigham & Women’s Faulkner
Hospital (BWFH) that his reappointment was not being renewed; he was
effectively being terminated.
He was told that his termination is “related to
your dispute with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center” and that his “conduct”
there “does not comport with professional standards and ethics.”
Dr. Church requested a hearing to appeal his
expulsion, as allowed by the hospital by-laws. The hearing began in June 2016
and was finally adjudicated one year later – in June 2017.
At his hearing, BWFH doctors told Dr. Church
that his statements made at BIDMC about the unhealthy nature of homosexuality
were “unprofessional” and constitute “bad medicine.” They
said that there is no innate unhealthiness to LGBT behavior, but that
“unprotected sex” is the reason for any LGBT-related health problems. They
ignored the information from the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
which he presented to them to back up his statements.
This is one of the exhibits from the federal CDC website that Dr. Church presented to defend his position. It was ignored.
Dr. Church and his expert witnesses fiercely
denied that he indulged in any “unprofessional conduct” or “bad medicine.”
These claims against him, he said, are purposefully drawn from an absurd
oversimplification and complete misrepresentation of the facts. It’s well
documented that LGBT behaviors statistically result in an enormous increase in
HIV/AIDS, syphilis, anal cancer, hepatitis, depression, suicide, domestic
violence, and many other problems. In particular, as Dr. Church pointed out, it
has a lot to do with promiscuity, a wide range of risk-taking behaviors, and
the type of sex, i.e., anal intercourse. The “safe sex” message has been around
for decades, and yet the latest statistics show no decline in the disease
transmission rates (and even increases in certain STDs), especially among the
homosexual males in the younger age groups and racial minorities. This cannot
be explained away by lack of “education” or availability of condoms.
But unfortunately, all of this was ignored and
rejected in both the BIDMC and BWFH hearings.
Aggressive and dishonest tactics used against Dr. Church
Dr. Church’s position makes common sense both
from a medical and public health standpoint. He was punished with an
unprecedented level of censorship for views held by other medical experts and
supported by medical and scientific fact.
Thus, because their case against Dr. Church was
so weak, the hospitals used very dishonest and overly aggressive tactics to get
him removed.
1. Improper use of “Peer Review” process
Massachusetts, like most states, provides in its
statutes (Ch. 111 Sec. 203) the requirement that hospitals
have a “medical peer review” process. Its purpose is to respond to reports of
conduct by a healthcare provider that indicates “incompetency in his specialty”
or “might be inconsistent or harmful to good patient care” – and determine if
his privileges should be suspended “in the best interests of patient care.”
The statutes also require (Ch. 111 Sec. 204) that the “proceedings,
reports, and records” of the peer review process be strictly confidential –
even immune from subpoena by a court!
Many hospitals around the country abuse this
process. They dishonestly use the medical peer review process as a way punish
or remove doctors for ideological or political reasons that have nothing to do
with incompetence or patient care. Since all the proceedings and documentation
surrounding the process is by law confidential, the doctor is unable to
publicly defend himself.
The use of “sham peer reviews” to punish
physicians has been strongly denounced for years by groups such as the American Association of
Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
Yet this is exactly what happened to Dr. Church
at BIDMC, BWFH, and Beth Israel-Needham Hospital. When it came to actually
caring for patients, none of the hospitals ever accused him of medical
incompetence, or of endangering patients in any way. All of Dr. Church’s
comments about homosexuality were within internal hospital communications
involving administration and staff, and never with patients.
Yet BIDMC, BWFH, and Beth Israel-Needham
Hospital labeled every single memo and document dealing with this process in
any way as “Peer Review / Confidential.” This was clearly to protect the
hospital’s reputation, not Dr. Church or his patients. He wanted complete
transparency and public disclosure of everything.
2. Legal intimidation
Both BIDMC and BWFH held hearings after Dr.
Church’s expulsion as part of the peer review “appeal” process.
The hearings were not “legal court cases” but
attorneys from both sides were allowed. Dr. Church had one lawyer. The
hospitals each brought in whole teams of lawyers from high-priced Boston firms.
Both hospitals clearly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars each on legal
fees, presented mountains of paperwork, and endless, often trivial, “exhibits”
against him, to overwhelm the process. Someday, we’d love to see all that!
That kind of legal intimidation and unlimited budget make it nearly impossible
for even a highly respected physician like Dr. Church to come out on top.
3. Kangaroo court
On top of all the above, we were told that both
appeal hearings were conducted by a panel of hospital-selected doctors and
staff in an absurd, mostly hostile, “kangaroo court” style. They often
curtailed the time allotted for Dr. Church and his attorney and extended the
time for the hospital people. Dr. Church’s character witnesses were treated
with disrespect. Key testimony was simply tossed out or not allowed. In short,
we were told, their behavior clearly suggested that the appeal “hearing” was
simply an aggravating formality that the hospital by-laws required. They had no
intention of looking at the facts in any unbiased manner.
The LGBT blitz through the medical profession continues
If anything, will prove to be a significant
precedent for the LGBT agenda in medicine. There were no criminal charges, no
patient safety issues, no incompetence, or even proof that Dr. Church was
incorrect in what he said. ONLY in opposing their ideology.
As Dr. Church recently said,
This is both an ideological dispute and a
medical issue. I have pointed out repeatedly that there are staff and employees
at these hospitals who object – based on moral and religious convictions – to
the unconditional promotion of LGBT agenda. Additionally, and especially
relevant to the mission of a healthcare institution, is the medical evidence
that behaviors and lifestyles common to this group are often unhealthy and lead
to serious medical consequences. It is hypocritical at best, and a betrayal of
the public trust at worst, to ignore or downplay these aspects in the interest
of political correctness.
Where is the discrimination here? Not by Dr.
Church!
*****
Ed. Note: Dr. Church wrote the introduction to the book The
Health Hazards of Homosexually which can be purchased from this site or Amazon.
Monday, August 14, 2017
The continuing saga of Dr. Paul Church and more on the fight against euthanasia – next FOT
Brian Camenker, Ex. Director, MassResistance |
Joining us for that discussion will be one of
Dr. Church’s strongest supporters, Brian Camenker, executive director of
MassResistance, a pro-family activist organization that educates people to help
them confront the attacks on the traditional family, children, religion, and
society. Founded in 1995, it is active across the US and worldwide.
Following Brian we’ll be joined by a
returning guest, Alex Schadenberg, executive director o
f the EuthanasiaPrevention Coalition on some of the recent events in the fight against euthanasia
including a report on the subject by the New Zealand Health Commission
recommending that the euthanasia not be adopted.
Alex Schadenberg Ex. Dir. Euthanasis Prevention Coalitin |
So join Deacon Mike Manno and Pam Briddell
for a discussion of these and other topics of interest Tuesday at 10 a.m.
(Central) on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on
IowaCatholicRadio.com. The program will be re-broadcast at 10 p.m. and podcasts
of earlier programs can be found here.
Faith On Trial is on the air courtesy of our
loyal sponsors and underwriters: Confluence Brewing Company – off the Bike Trail just south of Grey’s Lake, 1235 Thomas
Beck Road where there is live entertainment in the tap room every Thursday; and
Robert Cota, Farm Bureau Financial Services, 200 West 2nd Ave., Indianola, Iowa
50125, 515-961-4555 or 515-205-5642.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)