“Respecting the diversity of patients is a fundamental value of the medical profession and reflected in long-standing AMA ethical policy opposing any refusal to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination.”

— Dr. Gregory Blaschke, American Medical Association (Salon, 2/15/15)


Three years after being married in Vermont, Krista and Jami Contreras were expecting their first child. They arranged a “prenatal visit” with a pediatrician in their community and later felt confident they’d chosen a physician who shared their values of holistic care for their child. Shortly after their visit, Krista delivered a healthy baby daughter. Six days later, Krista and Jami brought Bay into the office for her first well-child visit and were promptly told that the pediatrician they had carefully chosen had decided not to see their baby after all, because, “after much prayer,” the doctor wrote to the parents, she “would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients.”


Because Bay’s parents — her legally married parents — are lesbians. Ed Mazza says Krista and Jami were stunned:

“I was completely dumbfounded,” Krista, who is the baby’s biological mother, told the newspaper. “We just looked at each other and said, ‘Did we hear that correctly?’…”

“… As far as we know Bay doesn’t have a sexual orientation yet so I’m not really sure what that matters,” Jami told myFOXDetroit.com. “We’re not your patient — she’s your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can’t keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?…”

“… It was embarrassing, it was humiliating and here we are, new parents trying to protect her,” Jami told myFOXDetroit. “And we know this happens in the world and we’re completely prepared for this to happen other places. But not at our 6-day-old’s wellness appointment.”


Jami and Krista should not be embarrassed by this pathetic doctor’s behavior. The doctor did a good enough job humiliating herself when she added in the note to these new parents:

“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.”


I don’t think the doctor means her choice not to care for this baby because, as a physician, she has no choice in this situation to refuse care, and no moral ground to stand on. If she meant that people have a choice regarding their sexual orientation, well that is so obviously and demonstrably false and absurd — a notion devoid of any scientific, religious, or moral credibility. (As a straight male, did my heterosexual tendencies win out over any homosexual ones that may have existed when I made my “choice”? And when did I choose, exactly? I’m sure I don’t remember. Can I choose to change my mind? You can see just how ridiculous this line of argument — that one chooses their sexual orientation — runs. Any person arguing that is already taking up too much real estate between your ears.)

Mary Elizabeth Williams finds the silver lining:

If there is any upside to the Contreras case, it’s the hope that the family are now in the care of a loving, compassionate pediatrician who sees that baby for exactly what she is – a loved child who is lucky to have caring parents. They’ve been spared unwittingly having their daughter in the hands of someone who manages to come to some really messed up conclusions, after “much prayer,” about her parents. They’ve made clear yet again the need for stronger protections against this kind of cruel and unethical behavior. And they’ve shed a light on how spectacularly unconfined bigotry can be, that it can radiate all the way to an infant, emanating from a practice that vows, “We look forward to seeing you and to taking good care of your child.”