Citing government statistics and offering warnings about the dangers of “gay” sex has one prominent doctor facing the possible loss of his job and what effectively could be a banishment from his work, and he’s not taking it without a fight.
Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist whose story first was reported by Brian Camenker at Mass Resistance, has been on the staff of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. He is appealing a board decision against him, and is planning for a hearing in July on his fight over his right to warn people that the facts prove “gay” sex is a dangerous lifestyle.
Church, who also is a member of the Harvard Medical School Facility and has conducted life-saving research on diagnosing bladder and prostate cancer, told WND, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle.”
He continued, “This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”
The facts, he said, are on his side.
“Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering,” he said.
But the facts that Church has used, from the Centers for Disease Control, appear to matter little in the case, he suggested.
He told WND he’s facing dismissal from BIDMC for speaking out on a subject where he unquestionably has expertise.
The problem first began more than 10 years ago when BIDMC began promoting LGBT activities, including Boston’s annual “Gay Pride Week.
Church expressed concerns to hospital officials and on the hospital’s Intranet, noting that by supporting homosexual activities and strongly encouraging staff participation the administration was acting against its mission statement.
After all, medical evidence shows homosexual activities are destructive, he said.
Amd BIDMC’s mission statement says it exists to “serve our patients compassionately and effectively, and to create a healthy future for them and their families.” The hospital also lays claims to its religious roots, saying, “Service to community is at the core of the religious tradition of both of our founding hospitals, and an important part of our mission.”
He explained to WND that the hospital, by encouraging staff to participate in “gay” pride events, was violating both standards.
The CDC and others have documented that those engaging in the types of sexual activities practiced predominantly by the LGBT community lead to psychiatric disorders as well as an extremely high likelihood of contracting dangerous and deadly STDs such as HIV/AIDS, anal cancer, parasitic infections and hepatitis.
“The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk,” Church said.
“Just because it has become politically correct and sexual orientation has been written into anti-discrimination laws is not a reason for the medical profession to be promoting and encouraging these risky behaviors. On the contrary they should be cautioning people about it and offer help to reduce the risk. But the idea that a major medical center is a propaganda tool for pro-‘gay’ activities is just beyond me.”
He continued, “We don’t have a smoker’s celebration so why do we have a ‘gay’ pride celebration. The political agenda is superseding common sense.”
The hospital did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
But Church also tried to remind officials there that among its employees there were a wide variety of personal and religious views. Some felt uncomfortable with being told to support a lifestyle contrary to the basic tenets of their faith and their advocacy could be considered a form of harassment against religious people, he said.
Hospital officials said his complaints about harassment were … harassment.
“I was told that my comments about the dangers of homosexual behavior constituted ‘discrimination and harassment’ and were considered to be ‘offensive to BIDMC staff’ and would not be tolerated. Yet what was amazing is no one has ever disputed the accuracy of my statements regarding the health risks of ‘gay’ sex,” he said.
An inquiry was held in 2011.
“I made statements to them regarding the medical facts about the dangers of homosexual sex. I thought that regardless of a person’s position on homosexuality I would at least have the ear of my colleagues instead of the administration since the evidence was on my side. To my surprise they seemed to ignore the medical evidence and sided with the administration,” he said.
He was reprimanded.
“I was told I was prohibited from discussing my views about homosexuality to members of the staff, visitors, and patients. It was essentially an all-encompassing gag order,” he said.
He said he left his own religious views out of the conversations with patients. But he felt he couldn’t even provide them with the evidence.
“I had plenty of patients over the years who self-identified as LGBT but unfortunately I feel like I cannot counsel them on risky behaviors that are unique to them because that would be viewed as advocacy for traditional marriage,” Church explained. “When I am with them I provide the same non-judgmental type of care that I provide to anyone else and ignore their lifestyle issues.”
Church also requested they opt him out of receiving emails advocating support for “gay” pride events but he was refused.
“I requested that my name be removed from the directory and that they have it more of an opt out/opt in type of arrangement regarding receiving emails supporting the ‘gay’ lifestyle but they ignored me and refused to do that, so I continued to get stories that praised ‘gays’ whenever they received an award or advocating for ‘gay’ pride week.”
Church said after having his requests for religious accommodation being ignored and after talking to attorneys who advised him under existing civil rights law and whistleblower legislation he was well within his rights to discuss hospital policy, he posted comments on the Intranet discussion board about whether the board should advocate for the unhealthy lifestyle that comes with homosexuality.
“Finally, after these legitimate medical concerns were ignored I decided to post just the scriptural verses from Leviticus and Romans with no comments on the bulletin board. I figured if they would come after this then their issue was with God and not with me, but they didn’t see it this way.”
In September 2014 the hospital convened a special “Investigating Committee” and charges were brought against him. Church said at the time he felt he would be vindicated because the medical facts and the law were on his side.
“I was not worried, thinking it would be obvious that their promotion of the homosexual lifestyle was contrary to the hospital’s mission statement which was to watch out for the public welfare. In addition, I was assured by attorneys that under existing civil rights law and the whistleblower act I had the right to speak out on issues of public policy. In spite of all this, the board sided with the hospital administration and revoked my medical appointment.”
His appeal now is pending.