Gay doctor flees Louisiana due to anti-LGBTQ+ laws: ‘I don’t have a choice’
thepinknews.com
A gay doctor who is one of Louisiana’s only specialist paediatric cardiologists has left the state after the introduction of a Don’t Say Gay copycat bill and a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth.
Jake Kleinmahon, who was one of just three doctors specialising in heart transplants for children in Louisiana, chose to leave the state with his family, as they no longer felt safe.
Kleinmahon met and fell in love with his husband Tom in New Orleans, and the couple expected remain in Louisiana, even after retirement. However, he told CNN that the state’s anti-LGBTQ+ legislation made him and his family feel unwelcome and that he ultimately “didn’t have a choice”.
Was born premature, and required open heart surgery when I was only a few days old.
When I was around 17 I had the chance to visit the hospital and tour the children's ICU I had been in. A children's ICU is not the happiest place in the world, and there were strange looks from both staff and parents as we walked around, feeling very awkward.
Then a short man with a thick accent burst through the door and hugged me. Turned out, the doctor who had performed my surgery was there and insisted on showing me around personally.
He walked me over to a woman who was about the saddest person I have ever seen, sitting next to an incubator. "This is what your son will look like in 18 years" he told her.
They took my picture, and hung it on the board for the kids who had "graduated", and I have to believe it was the first time in a long time that room had joy and happiness in it.
If someone had told me that that doctor wasn't welcome because he had a husband I think I would have wanted to become violent.
This law means that those families now have 1/3 fewer people to give a chance for thier kids, and the odds for me hadn't been that great to begin with.
What was the woman’s response to that comment from the doctor? Because that is a one impactful statement! How did it feel to basically be a example for hope to that woman that day?
She didn't say anything really, just smiled and thanked the doctor.
While I was too young to fully understand it at the time, it still had a big impact on me, and looking back on it now I tear up a bit.
That day is the reason, years later when joining the military, I took an MOS fixing medical equipment. I'm no health care worker, but I'm damned good w tech, and fixing the machines that help fix people always meant a lot to me.
I don't know what happened with either her or her child, but I suspect the doctor knew because he said it with such confidence, I doubt he would have given her false hope.
Thank you for sharing your story here
I was a little over 1 years old when I had a heart attack. My mom put me down for a nap and it happened shortly after that. I feel lucky in that I'm 34 and haven't had any major complications, but it does mean I am a little more at risk later on in life.
Either way, this was up in Alaka. There's really not as much up there. The idea of that happening, my mom getting me to the hospital, and then finding out that the person they needed just left a few weeks ago? In a way, I wouldn't know, but I can't imagine my mom going through that.
So long as the majority left behind in the state are GOP voters, they couldn't care less about how many people get harmed or die from their policies ...
E: spelling
Part of what makes religion so useful, to suffer becomes virtuous.
Then I hope they choke on all their virtue.
I wish them nothing but unyielding neverending virtue
You aren't wrong. The ideal is always something that if everyone achieved it the civilization would end.
Personally, I think this is all part of the plan. Chase the lefties out of their states so that they can solidify their majority, keeping themselves in power.
Do this with enough states, and they can kick off a constitutional convention.
I do wonder if they're doing the same with Twitter and Reddit.
They don't have the numbers. 19 states have majority Democrat Senate and Houses, and they need 66% of state legislatures to call one. They would only need two more states, but there's several problems with that. For one, not every Republican is on board, and the more moderate ones know how destabilizing it would be for moneyed interests. There's also a great chance it would plunge us into a civil war, and there's no guarantee that ends well for them. I think it's likely to be the opposite.
They're unlikely to even get to that point however because consolidating power in existing red states is actually counterproductive. They ensure a state that they already have will remain theirs, at the expense of chasing people out to other states, including swing states, who will be incredibly angry against their party. Plus, you have Republicans in these states moving to the red states as conservative havens. The net effect, states that aren't solid red are going to get more Democrat voters, and they're already struggling with a dwindling Republican voter base.
Knock on wood I'm right and this isn't just baseless optimism
That requires a lot of things to happen in a specific combination.
So did killing Roe v. Wade.
True, they had to wait for the deaths of two people elderly people who had well known medical problems. Sheesh what are the odds an 87 year old woman would die within a 2 year window?
Instead of here where they need tens of millions of people to migrate. Meanwhile they will continue to have to issue precise strikes on the few functional parts of their own economy. Georgia for example will need the population of Atlanta and Athens and Augusta and Columbus to pack up and leave. Those areas have reps of their own and will just sit their quitely while their own consistency is driven out?
I almost want them to try, on some level, just to see how badly this will go. "Ok we put a tax on lattes in Atlanta, that should do it".
Couldn’t…. Care less.
Fixed it for you 😘
Oh, they care. They prefer the harm and death.
The cruelty is the point
TL;DR: a gay pediatric cardiologist (one of only 3 pediatric cardiologists in the state) moved away because Louisiana politicians are predominantly backwards, regressive, homophobic shitstains. Other things too, but those are the characteristics relevant to the article.
thank you Bob Saget
Is it just me, or were Bob Saget and Jerry Seinfeld just not very funny?
I think you need to dig a little deeper. Sager was fucking hilarious.
Possible, I only really know him from Full House and AFV.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny
same
Seinfeld might not have held up. Younger generations do not think he is funny. But at the time he was funny.
Saget otoh was never funny.
When it's deemed illegal for you to exist, I don't think that's a political viewpoint anymore.
Illigal to exist? What the fuck are you talking about?
One of the laws the Republicans in Louisiana enacted was the "Don't say gay" law. And they have children who would be going to school in such an atmosphere.
Dont say gay, explain to me what that law is?
The bill states that schools aren't allowed to teach kids about sexual orientation until grade 4.
Somehow I don't think it will be applied to straight couples.
That's clearly the point. It's a bigoted bill.
Re: Your Username.
Whatcha weaving?
Thought patterns. The very fabric of society!
So it doesn't make being gay illegal? Because OP said "illegal to exist".
It's terrible, stupid, hurtful legislation, but do we really have to get so carried away with the sensationalism?
One of the first anti-Jew things done in pre-ww2 Germany was a one day boycott of Jewish businesses.
It starts small.
Sure, but there is a chilling effect.
Imagine being Jewish and the state decides that being Jewish is so bad that you can't explain it to schoolchildren, even those who might have questions about it. You think, as a Jewish person, that it's a healthy state to remain in?
This idea that teaching kids about sexual orientation means teaching about sex (MORAL PANIC PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!) is hot garbage, just a cover for conservatives to discriminate and scare gay people away. Just happens that one of them is the only pediatric heart surgeon they had.
Teaching that is ok if Jane has two daddies/mommies is not teaching about sexual intercourse or anything of the sort. They just don't want kids to know that gay people even exist.
I agree.
How is this a bad thing? Should we be showing sex toys to our kids?
Why would teaching kids about sexual orientation involve sex toys?
A) I didn't actually say it was a bad thing. I just clarified what the bill says.
B) Nobody said anything about sex toys.
C) The bill is a bad thing because teachers are supposed to teach kids about the world, and this bill prohibits that.
Don't engage, from their post history they're a troll
Please elaborate how you made the connection of sex toys to sexual orientation. I don't understand how you got there.
"Some people have two mommies or two daddies" is not "showing sex toys to people", and you are well aware of that fact.
You can just say you don't like gay people
Louisiana passed a law that's a copycat of this Florida one: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
Why exactly do you think this doctor and his husband moved?
What are you, stupid?
There's no need of doctors in the red states, they can just pray the pain away. If they die, well that's God will.
It's quite unfortunate for those too poor to move or who otherwise have no choice.
But at this point, what kind of care are they actually going to get if they're too poor to move. They're fucked either way because God forbid we help people in need.
It is but given that I did it, and I am hardly impressive, and pretyyy much every day I see immigrant families who did a much more difficult version my sympathy levels arent very high. Except for the teens and kids. They are fucked until 18.
If you have a kid, giving up everything including their welfare and education just so you can move is kind of abusive.
If you have a kid, you should be ensuring that they live in a safe, healthy environment where they have the chance to succeed. If that means moving, move. If that means staying stay. If that means fighting the fascist scum who want everyone to suffer, fight.
Honestly, leaving a red state would arguably give them a better education. It's more likely that people would be leaving behind friends and family which, in this day with very little social nets and high prices, is incredibly difficult, not to mention the emotional toll on some people.
Works as well as praying for the protection of children at shootings.
Why would they stop with such success?
The don't call 911, remember? 🔫
by your logic there's no need for international refugees on blue states either. red states can deal with them. (I'm being ironic here as your logic is as bigoted as theirs and, imho, that's not the way to resolve it)
....da fuck does that even mean? And how is saying red states pushing doctors away bigoted? They voted for this, they get to deal with the consequences. FAFO.
Aight 'b'
original comment stated "there's no need for doctors in red states" which it isn't true. what are you? 12?
there is a difference between saying what you mean, personally, versus personifying what one imagines the GOP leadership running the state of louisiana would say based on their voting record and obvious stances.
the person saying the comment above likely doesn’t think the people of louisiana don’t require doctors, but is instead saying that the state, as a whole, is reaping what they sow.
it’s unfortunate that there are going to be a lot of people that get fucked over on this. and a lot of people will have to do a lot of traveling to get procedures done. and it’s going to be painful. and that pain unfortunately needs to occur, or else the powers that be won’t realize how far they’re fucking over the citizens of their state.
it’s a hard lesson that’s being learned. idaho is learning it too. it fucking sucks.
brain drain is real. and the folks that ensured that it was possible are going to reap what they sow.
right now as far as lousiana the state government is concerned, they would rather have the coverage of a religious based rule than a gay doctor that could save the lives of so many children.
in which case: the hyperbolic statement that “there’s no need for doctors in red states, they have prayers” is, in essence, an accurate hyperbolization.
You're mostly right, but you made one critical mistake.
It isn't the powers that be that need to learn the lesson there, it's the citizens. Specifically the ones that keep voting for these shitstains. The ones passing these laws know exactly how much damage they're doing, they just don't care. They'll only stop when enacting these policies makes them unelectable, and the only way that will happen is if their supporters suffer the consequences of their actions.
Yes, agreed, they deserve what's coming for them but the "hyperbolisation" (as you called it) it's still wrong. They still have 2 other doctors there and I'm sure some other religious nut case will turn up to fulfil that position. Leaving them to their "hopes and prayers" is still as cruel as what these nut jobs wish upon the misfits. My take is that we can't take the same exact atitude towards them otherwise we are just proving them right. "An eye for an eye" rings a bell, probably biblical too.
Sarcasm 🙄
sär′kăz″əm noun
he is an internally displaced refugee. that's what it's come to now with all this. we need to liberate nazi-occupied states
Let that be done by the EU once Trump decides to leave NATO. (/s of course, no one can ever invade the US, and their decisions are theirs as long as they do not seek conflict with other countries!).
Even if some children in Louisiana won't be able to get heart transplants, it's okay because these children were already born.
Good for him. Wish him and his all the best in their new home.
That fucking sucks he has to run away but also damn if he isn’t probably the hottest doctor in Louisiana…. Well not anymore
Sucks for Louisiana. Other states could use more hot gay doctors
In a perfect world, there would be no reason for this to happen, but in a less perfect would- ALL LGBTQ+ people would leave all the red state dictatorships they currently live in- and go to where they’re welcomed with open arms.
In a perfect world, there would be no red states.
In a perfect world, there would be more than two parties.
That's not necessarily a solution. Look at the UK- three major parties, but being run by the right-wing Tories. Or Israel, with a bunch of parties and it's a mess.
I'm not happy with either party in the U.S., but it could actually be worse, not better, because often it either splits the vote or requires building coalitions with extremists.
Canada has many parties but is about to become a right-wing nightmare.
This isn't a party problem, it is a comms problem. The right feels like it must stop progress for human rights in any way possible. Lying, cheating, whatever. And in many places, the right is funded by rich people who want less taxes and regulations.
In Canada, it is tar sands oil. Since tax cuts and let's screw up the planet are not popular, you need a wedge issue. Here's Trump marveling at how a wedge issue is spread:
"It's amazing how strongly people feel about that. You see, I'm talking about cutting taxes, people go like that," Donald Trump said while making a muted applause gesture. "I talk about transgender, everyone goes crazy. Who would have thought? Five years ago, you didn't know what the hell it was."
And lets be honest, those coalitions almost always end up being mostly a 2 party system with more steps. The elect a bunch of different parties, then those parties all group together in 2 sides mostly. Possibly leaving a few that aren't included and then their votes mean nothing. It's like gerrymandering in a different way. You don't need to change voting districts, you just have to get another party that agrees with you on the important things to also win some elections. You could even argue that, while technically under the same name, the Tea party was kinda of that. A whole different kind of politician was voted in, with the understanding that they would just be agreeing with the Republicans on legislation. It's obviously not quite the same, but it's not far off.
There's literally 13 different coalitions in Germany for 17 (states and federal) governments involving five parties (not counting FW and CSU==CDU).
What you don't see is Left (demsocs) and either Union (conservative) or FDP (neoliberal pretending to be ordoliberal), but those pairings exist on the municipal level. Usually by the Left managing to remind CDU folks what the "C" stands for or chancing upon a left-liberal FDP guy (who exist, rare as they are).
What you do see a lot, and I mean a lot a lot, is the Greens being in coalition with either CDU or SPD.
Also, one important distinction: In a proportional system, there being two big parties is a reflection of the electorate's position. In a FPTP system, it is due to the system itself, the electorate doesn't get a choice.
The need for more parties goes hand in hand with the need for STAR voting
something is better than nothing, also I'm not American and this is how stuff works here, with more than two parties, arguably more democratic but whatever ¯_(ツ)_/¯
ps: not looking to get into a political debate.
What are we referring to as "nothing"? Because what Louisiana currently has is not "nothing".
And don't comment on politics if you don't want to "debate" (why everything a debate i hate the internet) or leave that little "tag" out of the comment because nobody actually gives a shit if you actually respond or not? You're not that special, kid.
The UK doesn't really have three major parties either, it has two major parties and a runner-up. UK has many of the same problems with its political system as the US (not that strange, since a lot of the US political system has roots in the UK system), so it is a really bad example to cite as a different political system, because it really isn't.
Israel is also a very unique example with a unique set of problems literally no other country in the world has, so again, bad example.
How about instead mentioning the many many countries with proportional representation which doesn't have these problems?
In a perfect world, there would be no need for parties or governments.
I hope the best for him and his family
I usually say they deserve the repercussions of their terrible values. When it affects innocent kids, it makes me sad.
Sadly, it is very often the people at the bottom who deal with shit-stain policies like this.
this and policies like anti-abortion policies rarely affect rich or middle-class people, who have money.
Why would you have that rapist's baby if you can afford to travel to another state, stay in a hotel, and pay for the procedure, without having to give up that nice vacation you've got planned, cover the costs of your children's private school, and trade up your car at the end of the lease next month?
This is the intended outcome of their actions. They'd rather get rid of useful things than allow a society that says it's fine for people to be who they are, because the overall purpose is to make people suffer.
The article doesn't do a good job explaining the "Don't Say Gay" bill. The bill prohibits teachers from teaching about sexual orientation before 4th grade.
Here is an article about that:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-don-t-say-gay-bill-desantis-1.6400087
Close, it's you can't even say gay people or kids exist
No, what it actually says is: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
To quote from the bill:
As far as I can tell, the term "classroom instruction" in Florida law means a course designed to be presented to a group of students by a live instructor using lecture, video, webcast, or virtual or other audio-video presentation. There isn't a separate definition given in the "Don't Say Gay" law, and at a glance I couldn't find another definition used in Florida other than the one I just gave, though there might be elsewhere in Florida law, since precise definitions are often central to what exactly is permitted.
This part, even with the "in accordance with state standards," is a big problem. This section doesn't restrict it to kindergarten through 3rd if no manner at all is considered age appropriate.
I also suspect "state standards" can be updated without legislature or without approval from parents.
I didn't say it was good, but it doesn't say you can't admit gay people exist. I figured linking the actual law we're talking about is probably more useful than running off either sides exaggerations of it.
A teacher got fired under the bill for telling her class she had a wife. She would not have been fired if she told them she had a husband. What's your response to that?
Can you point me at the case? Because the closest I've been able to find was a Texas teacher fired after referring to a woman as her future wife, and then winning a discrimination suit for $100,000 in damages. Which seems like the system working - bigot did stupid bigot thing, got sued, damages paid out. Also not in Florida, and thus obviously not fired under a Florida law.
There was also a pansexual Florida teacher (she was married to a man) who had students create flags reflecting their sexualities and hung them up in class who was fired, but it's a lot easier to argue that that is "classroom instruction" in an art class and it wasn't merely telling her class she had a wife (not least of which because she doesn't).
And also a married lesbian teacher who resigned because she felt the law would be too restrictive, but she wasn't fired or even challenged by the district or parents regarding her status according to the articles I've read.
My Google-fu may simply be too weak to find the right case.
Yeah but then how we would take things out of context then? Mindless fabrication of information? Lying? Bollocks I say!
Where did you read that?
I have two words you need to take time to parse: "Chilling Effect." EDIT: It appears you think the bill is bigoted, based on comments elsewhere. You directing people to the language of the bill like the text speaks for itself is usually something that proponents of the legislation do, hence my confusion as to your rhetorical point.
Wasn't the bill extended to all grades?
That's might have been in Florida, not Louisiana, but it wouldn't surprise me if this happens.
Just like the anti-gender affirming treatment bills that were supposedly only for minors because "we've got to stop kids from making decisions they'll regret." Later, of course, some right wing areas extended those bans to adults, dropping the "protect the children" mask that we were all able to see past anyway.
I never read about that extension, so I'd need a source.
You mean the anti-grooming bill?
Who cares?
Many people. Heart transplant doctors are rare. USA is so fucked up.
Flees Louisiana makes it sound like he was chased out by a lunch mob. This is grandstanding. Gender affirming 'care' for children should be banned.
Ok my typo was hilarious, but my point isn't.
Your point is hilariously stupid though.
A gay pediatrician? Cant make this shit up
Is there something about being gay that means you can't care for children?
More like you care a bit too much for children.
Gay men are not pedophiles. Gay men are interested in other men, not children. Don't be a bigot.
So, you think this guy goes around fucking children with heart diseases? That's where your mind goes?
Um, what?
They were pretty clear. They want to fuck children so naturally a gay person would as well, except that would be wrong and disgusting, unlike their perfectly natural Christian pedofelia.
More Republicans turn out to be pedophiles or abetting them than LGBT people. Just ask the Republican House about their former speaker Dennis Hastert. And while you're at it, you should ask them why they still follow Hastert's Rule and haven't renamed it.
Oh, and don't forget churches! More priests are pedophiles than gay people, and they get protected by their religious institutions.
Maybe conservatives should figure out why they keep running into these disgusting people in politics and in religion, and how these people get promoted to positions of power. It wasn't Democrats who made a pedophile the Speaker of the House after all. Could it be that part of what Republicans are trying to "conserve" is...?