
An unmarried woman in rural Tennessee says she was denied prenatal care by her doctor. The reason? Her physician said caring for an unwed woman having a baby was in conflict with their Christian faith.
That a doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath could turn down caring for a pregnant woman because of their marital status was once unthinkable. But the case – believed to be the first of its kind not only in Tennessee, but in the entire country – is entirely legal thanks to Tennessee’s 2025 Medical Ethics Defense Act.
That law, which went into effect earlier this year, allows physicians in Tennessee to refuse healthcare to patients on moral, ethical, and religious grounds.
Under the new guidelines, procedures like abortions, providing gender-affirming care, prescribing contraception, and prenatal care can all be denied to patients, with no protections for Tennesseans in rural communities where there may be only one doctor or specialist available for miles. Doctors aren’t even required to make a referral to patients they refuse to treat.
Now, the unmarried pregnant woman is forced to seek prenatal care hours away in Virginia, and admits her fear that in an emergency, local physicians may choose the life of the fetus over her own. She says that her pregnancy – which should be a source of joy – has instead turned into a point of existential dread.
Is “Do No Harm” Out the Window?
The story broke at a recent town hall meeting in Jonesborough, Tennessee where the unnamed woman first told her story. She said she went to a local physician for her first prenatal care treatment and was abruptly denied treatment when the doctor learned of her marital status.
He reportedly said his “Christian values” morally prevented him from providing her medical care, and that Tennessee’s new law legally allowed him to do so.
The woman’s been with her partner for 15 years. They have a 13-year-old child together. They plan to raise their new child in a happy, well-adjusted home with a mother and father. They just happen to be unmarried – and that was enough for the doctor to turn her away on faith grounds.
The woman says that she doesn’t believe her doctor is exhibiting the Christian values they claim to espouse.
“I don't understand how you can stand on Christian values and use the Bible as your justification while actively going against all of Christ's teachings,” she said of her physician. “If you are ‘pro-life,’ you believe in supporting and protecting all lives: the born, [and] the unborn.”
Healthcare Community Responds
Many commenters online were incensed at the woman’s treatment, arguing that the doctor violated the Hippocratic Oath when they turned the woman away simply for being unmarried.
“Name this doctor who is afraid to do their job because they believe in magic,” wrote one Instagram user. “So much for pro-life,” wrote another.
Many in online healthcare communities wondered if they could deny care to Christians on similar moral objections. “As a doc and member of the LGBTQ community, would like to point out that I didn't choose to be gay,” wrote one Reddit user. “However, these Republican lawmakers chose to propose this bill and are engaging in a lifestyle that I vehemently oppose. Can I deny them care without fear of repercussions?”
“Cool,” added one nurse, “it’s not in my beliefs to treat conservative Christians.”
Still others pointed out the hypocrisy that Jesus Christ would be refused healthcare by this doctor if such a law existed in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago. “Wasn't Jesus born to an unwed mother?” pondered one Instagram commenter. As another put it, “So I guess Mary would have been SOL.”
What is your reaction? Should doctors be able to deny care to patients on religious grounds?
97 comments
-
This is very disturbing on so many levels in of not just the order of just Being a compassionate human being upon the Demonic culture this world has adopted in this new age society. Media, Music, Movies, Internet, Cell-phones, are all of my opinion has become vacuum of indoctrination by the Fallen one him self playing on his Evil upon this world. Our U.S. health care system whether Commercial or VA has become a cesspool of greedy doctors whom the bid money pharmaceutical company pad their $$ coffers. I would personally pay for this woman's care!
-
Serve the public or serve no one.
-
If I were to tell you the truth of this subject from the opinion of one who lived, then died, went to heaven, then rose from a coma and now live again. Salvation is absolute though and I can see one of the reasons why I was sent back now. For now I bide my time here among you giving what wisdom I can provide to those who seek it. Once an angel always an angel, so bare with this harsh truth. When God cast Adam and Eve from the garden he told them to multiply thy seed and be fruitful so sex is not immoral, sinful, or anything against God. To abolish that would be to doom mankind because it is how he made us to sustain ourselves from generation to generation. It is when we become consumed with desire that leads us blindly to indulge ourselves in it that we become immoral and sinful. Another thing is the institution of marriage was yet another design to anger God and insult him. To see this you must take into context the fallen angels and what sins they committed that angered God. Now this does not apply to mankind because they do not know the truth behind this nor are they connected to the divinity of God's wisdom like angels are, so man does not know any better. The sins of the fallen angels that incurred God's anger was not only committing to the plan to have children with the mortal women but swearing an oath, an unbreakable pact between them to stay to the plan and raise the children without regret or abandonment. This occurred on one of God's seventh days when he would leave creation to go and rest so they could not discuss it with him and they assumed he would approve it because it was built upon love and devotion. Thinking that if they conceived the idea with God in mind then it would carry his approval. Their biggest mistake, their second was swearing upon God's name to bind themselves to the pact. This is where marriage becomes such an issue but since mankind does not understand with heavenly understanding then they know not what they do so it is not a sin technically. Either way, to use this subject as a reason to deny helping a woman who is pregnant is just simply, well for a lack of a better word. Selfish and Evil, in my opinion of course.
-
According to the article, this woman was "not married," leading one to think she was having pre-marital sex and got pregnant "out of wedlock." Doesn't Tennessee allow for "common law" "marriages?" Especially after 15 years of togetherness? [I am ignorant on that matter.] Other questions: What if a single woman was raped, and got pregnant? What if a woman is divorced after getting pregnant, therefore considered "single," "without a husband?" Does that doctor still get to refuse to treat those patients? Maybe his other ideologies are over-riding his Hippocratic Oath.
-
This is from what I know of , against the oath one takes as a Doctor. It is also definitely against anything that Christ tried to teach. This truly is a sad day when an unborn child...an " Innocent" is made to suffer because of one persons twisting of the most humanitarian teachings given to us.
-
Let me get this straight. So now it's alright to disregard the health and well being of an unborn child, because the mother's marital status offends the doctor's sensibilities? This is not pro-life. It's a political statement that potentially puts two lives in jeopardy. I wonder if the babie's father had an STD, would a doctor be able to refuse him care because he is an unwed father? Wake up, people. Do you really think this is what Jesus would do?
-
This is perfectly fine as no healthcare provider should be forced to treat anyone. Thank God Tennessee has such a law to protect providers.
Secondly, this helps us move along to better cohesiveness in emerging groups made up of people that think similarly and share same cultures. Either the person should move or the doctor should move to an area that is more aligned with their values.
The gender affirming mandate made these freedom to practice laws necessary because the state was forcing providers to do treatments that are malpractice.
-
Kevin, "malpractice"? helping a pregnant woman?
May you get a female doctor that doesn't aid white male misogynists.
-
-
This isn't "Christian" / "Catholic" values. This is nothing but pure bigotry and hate. They WANT people who don't believe as they do to suffer. And, of course, we have an administration in office that is encouraging brutality, bigotry, and HATE.
What this is showing, especially, just how deep the HATRED runs in this nation.
-
Comment removed by user.
-
-
I would punch this doctor in the face if I ever met him for being an evil bastard.
-
This is where Christians fail the most in walking in the footsteps of the Christ, who's teachings they propose to follow. The fundamental basics...every time. This is due to the ego centered nature within, trying to impose it's ignorance fueled ideas, agendas, false and baseless pride, and yes, today, even political leanings into scripture, instead of surrendering for all they are worth to the actual teachings and admonitions of Jesus, The Christ, and scripture. "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged", "Love Thy neighbor as Thyself", "ALL Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord" "As You Do Unto Others, So You Do Unto Me" "Let He Who is Without Sin, Cast the First Stone"
The prophets and Sages of old have paid their dues through years of actual effort, but today Christians have taken it unto themselves to believe that if they just read a chapter from John proclaiming Jesus as their savior, that they have a secured seat in his kingdom. NOTHING could be further from the truth, and if one cannot put real effort into even the most fundamental teachings of scripture, by what arrogance and self delusion do they come to believe they are saved?
By this Doctors thinking, Jesus would have never intervened in the stoning of the adulteress, nor would he have interacted with the Prostitute. As Christians we must learn and apply the most fundamental principle of the truly Spiritual Life, and that is to always take that pointing finger and turn it upon ourselves. Ignorance IS the fundamental root cause of all the sins of humanity. This is and always has been the TRUTH. Ignorance is also a condition which afflicts ALL humanity. It is purely a question of specific subject matter and degree of. Understanding this and embracing this truth within our Hearts is fundamental to understanding the need for understanding, compassion and forgiveness towards others, and to NEVER forgetting that we are ALL children of the One God no matter what within us tries to tell us otherwise, and that God LOVES ALL his children.
-
It’s astonishing—and disheartening—that in today’s world, we still witness discrimination under the guise of “moral choice,” especially in healthcare. It feels like we’ve stepped backward in time. As a nurse, I was trained—and raised—to care for people without judgment, regardless of their background, beliefs, status, or circumstances.
I’ll never forget one of my first patients during nursing school. It was the early days of the HIV/AIDS crisis, and fear and misinformation were rampant. The patient had HIV and was also gay. I remember the hushed voices of staff behind closed doors, saying they would never care for “someone like that.” Many refused to enter the room. It broke my heart then, and it still does when I think about it.
Compassion should never come with conditions. Health care is a human right—not a privilege reserved for the approved or acceptable. Stories like this remind me why empathy, advocacy, and courage in our professions still matter so much.
-
We are only hearing what one woman says, I would like to hear from the doctor who supposedly said that. How do we know the women is telling the truth.
-
You are disgusting for even thinking there was moral grounds in any of this
-
You're quick to blame the victim here. But I've been looking into this issue and the doctor has gone on record stating that it's against his religious beliefs to treat ANY woman who is unmarried, or who is going through a divorce no matter what condition she is in.
-
-
This doctor is beyond the pale. I can see him denying her an abortion, if she wanted one, on religious grounds. (I would not agree with him, but I could understand it.) However depending upon where you live, marriage may be unpopular these days. Of the 58,749 live births registered in New Zealand in 2022, 29,508 babies - or 50.2 percent - were born to parents who were not married. Imagine if doctors here were to start denying care to unmarried mothers? He is just plain wrong.
-
Denying her IS NOT a christian value!
-
This is not a Christian value. This is not what Jesus would teach or do. "...What you do for the least among me, you do for me..." Jesus came FOR the sinners. “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” – Luke 19:10.
Probably the best scripture for this "Dr" to understand are Mark 2:17 & Matthew9:12-13:
“On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” – Mark 2:17..."
“Jesus heard this, and he said, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.'” – Matthew 9:12-13
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” – John 3:17
Jesus literally died FOR sinners, this brother refuses to help a child in the womb, who has not sinned, because of his condemnation of the mother: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” – Romans 5:8.
When we live in a spirit of unforgiveness, forgiveness is denied us. “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” – Matthew 6:14
When we live in a spirit of unforgiveness, forgiveness is denied us. “Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” – Colossians 3:13
“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” – Ephesians 2:4-5
“But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.” – 2 Corinthians 12:9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” – Ephesians 2:8-9
His self-righteous behavior avails him not in the eyes of God: “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” – Titus 3:5
He will repent. I notice the article did not mention his/her name. If someone knows it, I will email him/her what the word says about his actions.
-
Please do not say that Jesus was born to an unwed mother. No scripture supports that conclusion. No historical narrative supports that conclusion. We can choose to believe that Joseph did marry Mary before Jesus was born. The scripture does tell us that Joseph stayed with her even after he learned she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Please do not re-write history when no history (or Holy Scripture) supports your conclusions.
-
Anyone who believes she was impregnated by some mysterious entity, and not her husband, is fooling themselves.
-
-
What happen to caring for widows and orphans. What happen to unconditional love. Beware of who claims to be Christians.
-
So, christianity is not actually pro-life? Tell me something I didn't already know.
-
TN does not recognize common law marrage. The simple solution to this is to simply get married. Unless of course there are other mitigating circumstances to marrage like legality of such. While TN law is quite broad it portions of it may be unconstitional.
-
🕊️ WHEN ‘FAITH’ DENIES LIFE:
Rev. JTSUNRISE’s Interfaith Response to the Denial of Prenatal Care Over Marital Status
⸻
I. THE SCENARIO AND ITS CONTEXT
A 35-year-old woman in rural Tennessee—partnered for 15 years and already mother to a 13-year-old—was denied prenatal care because she is unmarried. The physician cited Christian values and the state’s Medical Ethics Defense Act, enacted in April 2025, which legally permits healthcare refusal on moral or religious grounds—even for routine prenatal services.
Because of this, the woman had to cross state lines into Virginia for care—fearing that in an emergency, local providers might value fetal life over her own. This case is believed to be the first of its kind under this law and triggers profound ethical concerns.
⸻
II. MORAL INVERSION: PRO-LIFE ABBANDONS THE MOTHER
Scripture calls us to protect both birthgivers and children:
“Defend the rights of the poor and needy… deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” — Psalm 82:3 “Let him who steals steal no longer… but rather let him labor… that he may have something to give to him who has need.” — Ephesians 4:28
To deny care to a pregnant woman based on marital status undermines this holy ethic. The “pro-life” label loses coherence when it protects prenatal life at the expense of pregnant life.
⸻
III. SCIENCE AND SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE
Modern maternal health data underscores the harm of such denial: • Lack of prenatal care significantly increases risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, gestational diabetes, and intrauterine growth restriction   . • Many rural counties in the U.S. are maternity care deserts, leaving women with few options and driving maternal mortality upward—particularly among marginalized communities. • Black women are disproportionately affected, facing higher denial rates and medical dismissal—even when they initiate prenatal care late or not at all .
In this Tennessee case, rural access limitations compounded by legislation create a double bind—a pregnancy that should be sacred becomes medically and spiritually perilous.
⸻
IV. SCRIPTURAL AND INTERFAITH ETHICS
Every sacred tradition emphasizes care, dignity, and justice: • Judaism/Christianity: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves… defend the rights of the poor and needy.” — Proverbs 31:8–9 • Islam: “…whoever saves a life, it is as if they saved all mankind.” — Qur’an 5:32 • Hinduism: “The welfare of all is the welfare of the Self.” — Mahabharata
Any faith-based claim that justifies denial of care contradicts these scriptures and moral truths.
⸻
V. REV. JTSUNRISE’S REFLECTION 1. Healthcare is not optional charity—it is moral obligation. Pregnancy is inherently vulnerable; refusing care is spiritual and ethical violence. 2. Laws that permit refusal without requirement to refer are structurally unjust—especially in rural communities with scarce healthcare access. 3. True pro‑life theology cherishes the mother and fetus alike, offering support, not judgment. 4. Belief cannot override biology. The body bears the consequence of spiritual decisions—denied care is physical harm.
⸻
VI. CONCLUSION: TOWARD A SACRED STANDARD OF CARE
Rev. JTSUNRISE proposes a higher moral yardstick: • Any system claiming to protect life must affirm the dignity of pregnant individuals, regardless of marital status. • Religious liberty does not extend to permitting denial of lifesaving care. • Faith traditions must uphold the scriptural mandate to defend all vulnerable lives—not select according to doctrine or personal bias.
“Let justice roll down like waters… and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” — Amos 5:24
When medicine denies care, when law empowers denial, and when faith justifies refusal, the soul of justice is wounded. This Tennessee case demands not silence, but prophetic outrage. Compassion demands referral, healing demands equity, and moral truth demands care for those society deems inconvenient.
— Rev. JTSUNRISE Celestial Nexus Church
-
Sadly, we will see more and more of this, especially as Trump appointed judges will be around for a long time to come.
-
Judges don't pass laws. Legislators do. Judges just interpret them, and in this case, the law is pretty clear.
-
And many of them interpret the laws based on their own beliefs. For example, the 6 SC justices basically claiming the Constitution gives the president the right to VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.
Also, which law is pretty clear? That doctors can discriminate based on their own interpretation of their own version of their own religion? Because that's really what it is. Legislating discrimination. I wonder when doctors are going to refuse care for MAGA people in positions of authority because their own beliefs are against protecting fascists.
-
Actually, untrue. More and more, SCOTUS is writing the law from their benches as they see fit in order to make TACO-man a King
-
-
-
-
With a 13 y/o daughter and apparently stable relationship for that length of time, I would think that she could be considered to be in a common law marriage. I suppose this physician would only recognize a marriage blessed by the judeochristian god. As to Hippocratic Oath; i\I think, as a physician of many years, that it is really elitist and meant to protect the great secrets of the profession and provide for mutual support of physician for physician. The minimal references to actual patient care I see a unsatisfactory. To that end in graduating, as the class was led in taking the Hippocratic Oath, I did not. Instead I recited the Oath of Maimonides and have endeavored over 50 years to honor that Oath. I would probably be jailed in TN and any of the other "Bible Belt" states of hypocritical self serving reinterpretation of whatever message we have of Jesus's teachings. There is nothing in the New Testament nor in the Gnostic and Apocrophal Codices that would support any of the demands and practices of the self named Christians of the Christian Nationalist Conservative congregations. While Maimonides did not write the Prayer nor Oath attributed to him, they were thought to be authored in about 1783 by German-Jewish physician Markus Herz based on his own earlier text in Hebrew. So these Christian Physicians might be more Christian if they observe this Oath based on Jewish Ethics:
The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. May the love for my art actuate me at all times; may neither avarice nor miserliness, nor thirst for glory or for a great reputation engage my mind; for the enemies of truth and philanthropy could easily deceive me and make me forgetful of my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children.
May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.
Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements. Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today.
Oh, God, Thou has appointed me to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures; here am I ready for my vocation and now I turn unto my calling.
-
Talk of idiocy! So much hate and prejudice have been given voice by the present admin, it s heartbreaking!
-
We are all children of the same universe . ✝️
-
Regardless of the law, this doctor's decision is completely unbiblical and unchristian, as well as a violation of his oath.
-
The woman also refused to be identified for the same reason. This sounds like a set up story. There are so many unmarried pregnancies and his practice would suffer greatly! Refusing to perform abortions yes but not pregnancies.
Prayer is more effective in these cases. God changes a mind more than shouting and beating a drum.
-
Prayer has zero impact on anything and everything. How many people pray fervently for homelessness, poverty, sex trafficking, pedophilia, cancer, etc. to end? Not enough? Not fervently enough? Would one more prayer help? Five more prayers?
Your bible states that your god is omnicient so he already knows all outcomes.
-
-
Mixing medical ethics with TRUE Christian values would dictate that the doctor would follow his previous oath to "do no harm". If the doctor cannot reconcile these two things, he should quit and/or have his license to practice medicine revoked.
-
As you say, I agree, but as I posted in my response, the mandate is Not just Do No Harm. It actually in more proactive in the Oath of Maimonides. The Oath is not simply passive do no harm, but rather an active requirement to provide support, care and succor for all Creatures in need. Ok I am pantheistic, but also a physician who is sickened by Christianization and Hypocritical self interpretation of both medical ethics and Jesus's teachings. I add again the Oath of Maimonides so some of the commentors can focus more of ethics and humanity rather than theological justifications for cruelty.
While Maimonides did not write the Prayer nor Oath attributed to him, they were thought to be authored in about 1783 by German-Jewish physician Markus Herz based on his own earlier text in Hebrew. So these Christian Physicians might be more Christian if they observe this Oath based on Jewish Ethics:
The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. May the love for my art actuate me at all times; may neither avarice nor miserliness, nor thirst for glory or for a great reputation engage my mind; for the enemies of truth and philanthropy could easily deceive me and make me forgetful of my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children.
May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.
Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements. Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today.
Oh, God, Thou has appointed me to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures; here am I ready for my vocation and now I turn unto my calling.
-
-
It appears as though "Christian values" are interpreted by individuals and not tenets set forth by 2 thousand years. Christian values have dropped in the past 20 years. So how can people pick and choose who they want to help and ignore others? Just saying...
-
He takes an oath to provide care to anyone in need...either he is a doctor or a judge...but he only is qualified to be a doctor. Charge him for impersonation of a government official.
-
Isn't deny someone care a violation of his Hippocratic oath? This is a no brainer. I would think the doctor could lose his license or be sued for medical neglect of one of his patients. It seems he's treading on very thin ice. If someone was shot robbing a bank would he let him bleed to death? You could use the same excuse for a bank robber. It's never sound thinking to judge and condemn this way. This doctor seems to not think about his own sins. The scriptures say to consider yourself when you see a man overtaken in a fault teaches us to be humble consider we aren't perfect when pointing fingers.
-
The actions of the doctor are not Biblical. There is nothing in scripture that backs up his claim. Mary was pregnant with Jesus before she married Joseph and God did not reject her but blessed her. To do what this doctor is doing is not pro-life.
-
Sorry, I didn’t realize and posted in Spanish. Here is the message in English.:
My sister got pregnant 35 years ago and the father of the child didn’t want to take responsibility. On top of how badly she suffered because of that, the priest of our community church, in Barcelona, Spain, refused to baptize her child just because my sister was a single mother. Tell me, is that fair treatment from a Christian priest? If that’s love for one’s neighbor, then God help us — and I mean that quite literally.
-
Let’s face it—this law was written to let physicians refuse treatment to certain groups of people, and now it’s backfiring. Supporters of Tennessee’s SB995 Medical Ethics Defense Act argued it was meant to protect providers from participating in abortions or gender-related procedures. But the language is so broad and vague that it opens the door to all kinds of arbitrary or discriminatory refusals.
If lawmakers truly wanted to shield providers from participating in specific procedures, they would have written that explicitly. Instead, they passed something that lets doctors quietly deny care based on their personal interpretation of religion—without oversight, and without accountability.
And here’s the real question: What would Jesus do? Would He turn away an unwed pregnant woman in need of care? Wasn’t Mary herself an unwed mother? This doctor’s actions don’t reflect religious conviction—they reflect judgment. If his interpretation of faith allows him to turn her away, does it also allow him to let someone with HIV die? Where does this end?
And let’s not forget: abortion is illegal in Tennessee, supposedly because lawmakers value the life of the unborn. So how is refusing prenatal care to this pregnant woman valuing the life of her unborn child? It’s not about protecting life—it’s about controlling it.
If lawmakers truly cared about life, they’d pass laws that protect all of it—not just the parts that fit their agenda.
-
One thing I should’ve said earlier: The lack of clarity in this law isn’t a flaw—it’s a feature. It was written to give cover for discrimination. Not just against abortions or trans people, but anyone a doctor decides is morally unacceptable—unwed mothers, people with HIV or AIDS, drug addicts, and whoever else they want to turn away. That’s the real danger here.
-
-
Seems pretty odd for a small town. Maybe he didn't do well with OBGYN and blew her off in the wrong way. If it is as she states than their is a problem with the doctor. If this is fabricated for attention (and we've all seen it happen) she'll have a hard time finding any doctor.
-
Rather than the birth of Christ Jesus, to a Divine Handmaiden, I'm thinking of how Midwives responded to Pharoah's Edict to drown Israeli Babies. What "Health Care," was this woman asking for?
-
Prenatal care. Something that every pregnant woman needs.
-
-
God help me if I get into a car accident in Tennessee, need a blood transfusion, and the attending emergency physician is a Jehovah's Witness. This is beyond insane. I suppose this doctor also refuses to prescribe birth control to single women.
-
This "Doctor" is not following the teachings of Christ. No, this "Healer" is following a broken moral compass. Help those in need! if anything else, follow that! How wonderful would the medical field be if they would just do that!!
My daughter broke one of the bones in her foot last year. I took her to urgent care in our hometown, and they denied her help. They said, "we can treat who we want and deny anyone we want." This is our medical support now. These are the people that we put our trust into during our medical time of need!! Billions of our dollars are put into the medical profession in buildings, supplies, education, and we get denied because they don't want to do their jobs!!
STOP USING RELIGION AS A REASON TO NOT HELP!!! Here is another thing that is "helping," The governor of New York State has passed a law that now allows children to be abused! Yep, that's right! This so-called family woman passed a law back in the days during the covid times that took the power away from child protective service. Now, young ones are able to be abused by their parents.
She is helping people like the doctor in this article to do the wrong things! No, I am not saying she is helping this particular doctor, I am saying she is helping the wrong side of the moral compass.
We need true Doctors that will look at a patient and have compassion, understanding and help those in need!
Wow, did I rant or what... Sorry about that. People like this doctor, like the governor get me so upset! Him using the religion card to not help (remember the good Samaritan in the Bible? This doctor is not him). Her... just no. How dare you, you foolish woman, putting children in harm's way because of your uncaring nature.
I must go now. I need to calm myself. As I have said before, I send my love to you all. Sinners and Saints.
-
I agree. Also, Jesus did not turn away anyone who was a sinner, he came to save ALL SINNERS. Also, even doctors are sinners and a title makes no difference!
Why turn away a patient who needs care????
People need to stop using Christianity for the excuses to do what's in their own heart and then call it righteous. Self serving with a cover up is what it is. It definately shows God what's really in the heart. I'm praying for those who use God to do what is not of him. I'm done.
-
-
The doctor is not her husband how can he give her prenatal care? lewd! Every doctor says the same thing, none of them provide prenatal care. 🤨
-
Wow ... there's nothing like Christian love is there?
Wake up America. Christianity is a hate group.
-
"That law, which went into effect earlier this year, allows physicians in Tennessee to refuse healthcare to patients on moral, ethical, and religious grounds."
One's personal beliefs have no place in the provision of care to people one may or may not agree with. When one is educated in a care-giving profession, and one is licensed and practices in a care-giving profession, the ethical agreement to comply with the standards of the profession is paramount to one's personal beliefs.
If one disagrees, one should not accept or practice.
As a mental health professional, nearing 40 years now, I have never had to turn away a client because their life experiences, beliefs, etc. were not the same as mine; I have not and would not. The client, on the other hand can make this choice for themselves if they feel the working relationship is not beneficial to them based on perceived differences.
My job is to use my knowledge, experience, and skills to work through whatever is happening in their lives: it is not to pray, invoke deities, or stick pins in voodoo dolls on their behalf. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.
The issue here is professional ethics, rules, expectations, etc. If a licensed caregiver cannot meet the obligations of a profession, the person should not practice voluntarily, surrender the license, or should be referred for a license violation and subjected to professional disciplinary measures.
I also find it interesting that all of these alleged "christians" feel they are justified in denying services to those in need. I don't think their jesus, reported to be a healer of all kinds of distressing conditions, would approve.
Why is it we always have to go back and deal with the "slave" states on these issues? THEY LOST.
-
Daniel, I am not aware of the TENN law you referenced. I know of several professions, doctors included, that have refused to take on a patient for a variety of reasons.
I am a bit confused here. IF the LAW you referenced states RELIGIOUS grounds, then isn't that the right of this Doctor to then refuse? That's what I see that the law you referred to clearly stated, yet you state otherwise.
So, which is it? Seems like TENN gave them that right.
If you're are a Physician, I'm your patient, and I am a drug addict, I come to you for treatment, but I don't listen to you, are you STILL going to keep me as a patient ,and CARE for me? I doubt it.
I see, and hear, this all the time. Don't our ER's do that ALL the time? You come in for treatment for whatever, they give you BASIC care, THEN TELL YOU TO GO SEE YOUR FAMILY DR. ISN'T THAT THE SAME AS DENING YOU CARE? How many patients have been to a ER, should have been admitted, yet they gave you basic Tx. sent you home, where unfortunately, the patient died. It may not qualify as refusal, since you received some level of care, but was it adequate? IMHO, one's personal beliefs are going to be one's grounds for care to a patient. Call it what you like. It is still going to be held, that they would be one's religious grounds.
-
I'll agree to disagree up front, but your statement that you would be discharged as my patient if you do not follow my advice is completely wrong. I am a physician and have served as expert witness on amany malpractice and ethical practice issues. A physician is required ethically, and in many jurisdictions by the regulations related to medical practice overseen by the State Board of Medicine. If I no longer want you as a patient for whatever reason I am obligated to refer you to one or more physicians who will likely see you. As to not following my advice, there are many studies that suggest that at least 50% of prescriptions are not filled by the patient and those that are filled are frequently misused. There are a lot of things required in medical practice and Board of Medicine regulations that you apparently do not know, but I can accept your disagreement with me and urge you to at least take a look at your State regulations under the Board of Medicine. Here in MD it is called the Board of Medical Quality or Medial Board of Physicians. Just look it up for your State. It will be there aklong with the varioous State Boards regulating Nursing, Pharmacy, etc. Always good to be informed as we disagree.
-
Dr. Peters, I disagree. You're in the state of Maryland. Say no more. It's a BLUE state. Who want nothing but to CONTROL your professions, as well as all it's citizens. Just look at what they did with Covid.
Your profession might need to deal with that, yet, as I stated, many Doctors do not adhere to that code, nationwide. They have NOT directed the patient to a different Doctor, as your State directs.
You can say all you want, but it is no longer a practice , again, Nationwide. I have know of several, and the Doctors were NOT reported, as you claim, Again, MD State. I am aware of the Hippocratic oath. As I stated, even that has changed in many of the so called Medical schools. ALL because they are ALL CONTROLLED by BIG PHARMA, and I am sure you know that, maybe you don't. I have seen graduations where they have them repeat it. It is not the same, as it sadly, once was.
As I also said, It's all about CONTROL. Your profession, and others, are CONTROLLED by the STATE of MD. They DICTATE to your professions, just what they want you all to do. You stated the last part of the LAW, by RELIGIOUS grounds.Then what are Religious groups in your mind, or the STATES'. It's confusing, are they, or not, allow the profession to express their beliefs? Evidently, that's a bit opposite of what you, or the LAW say. Another, sad state of affairs.
You may be a good practicing professional, but that does not mean that everyone will follow what you, or your State directs. I call the control, being a follower, and NOT a LEADER.
A have a good day. Thank you.
-
-
-
I have 10 years on you in practice and totally agree with what you say. I have been forced on occasion to have to deny care because of the obligations of the various insurance companies wrt POS care or closed network care. In those situations I had to refer the patient to either their insurance company for whom would be accepted by them. Even so, if the care was urgent I provided it and most often did so for free as any coverage would be denied. I don't think I ever refused to provide urgent care. I also worked/ran emergency rooms and never told an ambulance to move on because the patient was indigent. If I have i pray for forgiveness of my ignorance and would hope you too would pray for me.
From the Oath of Maimonides: May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.
Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements. Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today.
-
-
Why not that certain patients be treated for free a lot of couples aren't married these days
-
Where in his by Bael does it say one has to have a Luciferian license with the Satanic state?
-
-
Then this person should give up practicing medicine, under their oath they shall do no harm, which also means preventing harm.
-
Tennessee has passed a barbarian law. Any doctor who refuses treatment because of a patient's living situation is wrong. There is no other way to see it. Personal beliefs should not stop a physician from performing their duties.
-
Yep. They seem to think that we're living in a theocracy. From a Biblical perspective marriage doesn't exist anyhow as a man cannot husbandry livestock that isn't his. Women aren't property and as such Biblical marriage doesn't exist. This doctor needs to be fired and possibly barred from practicing medicine.
-
-
Perfect example of why there should be NO RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS! So much BS.
-
Elizabeth,, I think there is a difference between exemptions, and one's belief.
Example, as obtaining an exemption for many when they were forced to take a shot, that we were not told everything about. So, they are essential. The Doctor did not take out an exemption, but it was his belief, that he could not care for an unmarried woman. True, it does not make any sense, but we all have our strong convictions.
The Amendments give everyone that right. Case in point, In the UK, did you know that if you make any derogatory remark on F B, you will be arrested? Can you imagine that here on this site?We can agree, to disagree. Sadly, that does not always occur.
Laws are needed, but IMHO, I think sometimes they are hastily written, and they come to find out, that what the legislation intended, was not always what was perceived. It's a mess.
Thank you.
-
-
I've said the exact same thing time and time again as you. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket. God has got to be on his knees seeing all of this. Once more, those "doctors" should all be disbarred! Hypocratic oath is non existent. So sickening
-
Hopefully, someday, when this administration is dead and buried, we can return to some semblance of sanity and caring for our fellow humans.
-
Once you decide to give zealot hate power, it is almost impossible to recover from it. We are forever changed and forever damaged by the choices that were made. We now must live with the choices that were made. Eventually, when the zealots run out of people to hate, they will turn on each other. We got very lazy with our freedom. We failed to watch over it and now we are losing it one piece at a time.
-
Lawrence,
'Perhaps someday,' people will quit blaming 'leaders' and authorities for their own narrow-minded patterns of thought and behavior, and will quit encouraging same and similar.
-
I am actually thinking that this administration is a long way off being dead and buried. Illegal immigration is at an all time low, thank goodness, and we have finally managed to majorly reduce inflation from the last administration. It’s very unlikely that this administration will become dead and buried when the alternative is an administration with no current leadership, and standing at 19% of approval rating. 🤷
🦁❤️
-
Some people should seriously think of not having an opinion......especially when they don't bother to obtain facts..... lionheart.....indeed
-
-
-
This story, IMHO, has a lot of missing facts. She claims she's pregnant again, how many children does she have? She claims she's been together for 15 years, yet not married, OK, so WHO was she going to for medical treatment prior to this? Was it him? He's the only Doctor in town, and now she has to travel. Had they thought of that prior to getting pregnant? Info about Doctors refusing treatment, that's, been around for a while. I know of several cases. So now the State of Tennessee made it law. True, it does go against the hippocratic oath, sadly today, the schools now graduate many who really should not be doctors, and the oath has changed. So now she is all gong ho on advertising it to the town, her prerogative as well. Well, now it's a two-way street where many of the professions, are fighting back. Who started all this crap? The LEFT, by pressing many processions to DO what certain groups want. Now these professions are feed up with all this nonsense and they are having their day, by refusing to treat her, the same with forcing a baker to make a cake, a photogropher to make videos, or take picture, or a minister to perform a wedding. ALL cases where they fought against this because of their religious belief(s). Its's their right. The list goes on and on. It will not stop. What does she expect the towns people to do? Neither they, nor she, can FORCE any doctor to treat her. It's not going to happen, no matter how much pressure she, or they think they are going to put on this doctor? If he's the only doctor in town, they he would up and leave. that's not going to benefit the rest of the towns people. IMHO, this is what happens when push comes to shove.I guess sh'll need to bite the bullet and travel, as this doctor unfortunately, as he already stated his decision. Sadly, really sets in. It's another kink in the armor of life....... Don't expect this doctor, or other professions, that might follow to change their minds. They will not.
-
Mr. Giammarco, that is why there needs to be laws to prevent bigotry. It may be his right to be a Bible thumper false Christian but should not be legal. But when he goes to his medical office, he must leave his personal prejudices and bigotry at home.
-
Ms. Neeb , So what you are saying is that IT'S OK TO IGNORE ONE'S RELIGIOUS beliefs? That makes no sense. Therefore, then why even HAVE a religion, or GOD that one's belief is embedded ? Having a LAW to FORCE one to do something against one's will, makes no sense. We have a Constitution, which affords ALL of us certain RIGHTS, and the FIRST amendment guarantees PROTECTION for everyone to acknowledge their belief.
-
So if a Christian believes that the Bible supports white supremacy and refuses to serve people of color in their community, that's a protected right? Didn't we have the whole civil rights movement to show us how that enables discrimination?
You can believe that having a child out of wedlock is a sin but refusing to do your job as a doctor because someone is having a child out of wedlock is pushing your religious beliefs on someone else. How is that okay? How about the religious rights of the woman trying to receive medical care in her community?
-
Your right Michael. This doctor is actually off the rails on two counts. He's fully in the wrong with what the Bible says and he's breaking his oath as a physician.
He's just as bad as those doctors who would tread people if they didn't get the COVID shot and boosters.
The Bible says care for that woman and bring a healthy child to the world.
-
-
-
Ms. Neeb , So what you are saying is that IT'S OK TO IGNORE ONE'S RELIGIOUS beliefs? That makes no sense. Therefore, then why even HAVE a religion, or GOD that one's belief is embedded ? Having a LAW to FORCE one to do something against one's will, makes no sense. We have a Constitution, which affords ALL of us certain RIGHTS, and the FIRST amendment guarantees PROTECTION for everyone to acknowledge their belief.
-
good point, supporting FORCE to compel anyone to do anything against their will is like supporting slavery. Back in the 1860s was there not a war to get rid of slavery?
-
-
-
Blaming this on the left is like blaming it on Jesus—it’s all in your mind. This didn’t happen because of a baker, photographer, or web designer. It happened because of a law that was written to block gender-affirming care, and now it’s backfiring in exactly the way some of us predicted.
You can blame this on people’s misguided interpretation of the Bible and their staunch views on how others should live. But if your faith leads you to deny care to someone in need—especially a pregnant woman—then maybe it’s time to ask: What would Jesus do?
-
you might also consider medical ethics. He has a right to not give care BUT also an obligtion to refer her to someone who will treat her. The article does not idicate that he did and so per the laws of malpractice and the ethics of medicine he is guilty olf failure to provide care. The provision would have easily been met by a referral. He is guilty and should be charged and have his license revoked.
-
According to the article, the law states that he is not even required to provide a referral. It’s a sad day when doctors are allowed to let people go without care because they are morally opposed to the person's lifestyle.
-
-
Mr. Johnson, So you claim that gender care is OK? Then I say, What is GOD saying about all this, on how the nut jobs are PUSHING kids to do this, rather than help them psychologically? What I am saying is that people are being FORCED to do something against their religion. Regardless of what that religion is. Each of us had own beliefs, and follow that belief with one's conscience. What I gather you're saying, is that if my child wants to be other than their biological being, then I should have them do it? Regardless of my beliefs, because that IS what the LEFT wants one to do. I'd rather try to obtain some help for my child, rather than jump on the band wagon. Should they later in life wish to do so that's their right. A woman being pregnant, is by choice. They want a child, good. However, as adults, we all need toTHINK of any roadblocks with any pregnancy. Yes, any pregnant woman should get care. Yet, if the medical professional refuses, you, and others say FORCE them to do so. Yes, it is a TUFF decision to make, on both sides. Again, I posted questions about that story. I don't believe in telling the town about her situation, will change anything. Sadly, she has to seek care elsewhere. If the town pressures the Doctor, then he'll leave the town, and that would not be beneficial to them. The Legislation can not make a LAW forcing a Doctor, or for that matter, ANY professional. Yet, there are LAWS, sadly, for Doctors and school counselors to REPORT incidents about kids issues in school, or hospitals, i.e. abuse, etc. However, this as well, has been an issue. There are and have been reports where the schools will have a child TREATED against their parent's rights, or knowledge, and worse yet, even INFORMING the parents. So you're telling me, is that this is OK? Should that be YOU, child, being treated AGANST your rights, or knowledge, or religion, you think it's OK, and you would ACCEPT this? I seriously doubt it. All LAWS don't always work the way we think that they should. Case in point here. Many here want to force a law. This will then make everything OK. Sadly, it will not.
-
Mr. Giammarco, I want to be clear: my comment referenced gender-affirming care only in the context of how the law was written—not as a statement of personal support or opposition. This article isn’t about gender-affirming care, and trying to make it about that distracts from the very real issue at hand.
The law in question was supposedly written to protect doctors from performing abortions or gender-related procedures, but the language is so broad that it allows doctors to deny care for nearly any reason, as long as they claim it violates their beliefs. That’s what’s happening here: a doctor is refusing prenatal care to a pregnant woman because she’s not married. That has nothing to do with trans issues, nothing to do with children, and everything to do with personal moral judgment.
If the doctor truly believes unwed women don’t deserve care, then he should reconsider his understanding of scripture—because Jesus' own mother, Mary, was pregnant and unmarried too.
-
Mr. Johnson, I understood what the article was in reference to. You sir, are the one that broached that subject, not me. I understand the law was written, that's because we had a RAT party, who don't give a damn about children, and pushed this nonsense. I didn't think you were in support of it. Sadly, many are, and when an article is written here, many seem to glide away from the article, and mention other areas, that really have nothing to do with the subject .If you were offended, I do apologize. I t's sicking, to me, to see the type of articles that seem to appear on the ULCM site. I guess that's life, and it is difficult to deal with them, as well as the multitude of crazy laws, that we have to deal with as issues arise. It's also difficult to agree, to disagree.
Thank you for your follow-up.
-
Robert, let’s not rewrite history. I brought up the intent of the law—because that’s what this is really about. In their rush to pass a policy aimed at discrimination, lawmakers failed to consider the broader consequences for others, including people like this pregnant woman.
Also, to clarify: I never said I oppose gender-affirming care. I support the consensus of medical professionals over a crowd shouting “indoctrination” based on misinformation or fear. Some would call that kind of misunderstanding what it truly is—prejudice.
-
Mr. Johnson, You seem to be ALL over the place and to me, a lot of what you state back to me is confusing. If one does not oppose gender affirming care, they you say you support it. I get that this article is about something else. I get that when the legislation makes LAW, their intent, is many times perceived by many, to mean what that specific groups wants, Not what the law originally stated. I agree, it's a mess.
I do NOT support gender care. In response to others I stated my views.
I am not trying to re-write history, Maybe it should.
These articles, comments and replies, are exhausting.
As I stated many times. we cannot agree, to disagree. I leave it at that. Thank you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
If it happened or not, it is cautionary tale. These are not "Christian" values, they are hate filled and backed by scriptures taken out of context. Reminds me of my teacher that said any scriptures can be used for good or evil. His classic was, Judas went and hung himself. Go ye and do likewise.
-
Agreed. After all, wasn't Jesus' born to an unwed mother? Isn't she the highest ranking female saint?
-
-
I cannot seem to locate the "physician's " name in any on-line source. Starting to wonder about the validity of this story. Understand that I believe this COULD happen under the Faux Christian laws but I'm wondering if it DID happen. It's reprehensible and he not a follower of Christ teachings nor a follower of his own oath. He needs to be outed to the community and the AMA.
-
This was also on the national news. They refused, as far as I know, to name the “doctor” because they were afraid of public backlash. There is no hate like conservative “christian” love!
-
Cynthia,
While AMA maybe would be interested in this one, I don't trust that Rockefeller institution any more than fundamentalist ____ (name any established religion that has a fundamentalist wing).
Also, part of the reason this doctor has so much clout in the first place is because of AMA and its anti-competitive tendencies are embraced wholly by the unholy FDA. If not for them, many options would probably be available locally. ...and it wouldn't matter about this psycho--and he'd probably never push his psychosis like this.
It's time for people, each individual, to recognize their own sovereignty and how they've given it away to 'authorities' who utterly abuse their power and violate everyone else's sovereignty.
Rule no one. Be ruled by no one. Let voluntaryism rule. Collaborate voluntarily. So I say let that doctor be that way, but wipe out his fiefdom by restoring healthcare to real choice.
By limiting care to practitioners licensed by a predatory monstrosity like RockePharma (AMA and all that its twisted science supports and FDA enforces), narrow minds like this practitioner have a playground on which to foust their malice.
-
Keith,
Don't forget that the FDA, in general and the entire medical profession in particular are ruled and run by the insurance companies, simply because they hold the purse strings. They set the rates, have say over what is covered and not, and how much a doctor/pharmasist/technician/therapist can charge for their services.
-
Agreed about the influence of insurance! I'm surprised I didn't mention it!
Insurance coverage does decidedly push people in a particular direction and away from others. Manipulative!
I disagree slightly: insurance, along with regulatory capture, is a tool of Big Pharma to assure that all care need rolls its way.
-
Keith,
You hit one of my "soapboxes." If Opiates weren't addictive, they would have been replaced decades ago by better pain relief agents. Big Pharma made billions from developing addictive substances. It insured them a continuous cash flow. Capitalism at its finest. That is the number one reason why our health should never be put in the hands of for-profit companies. I know I don't want a doctor or hospital deciding what treatmet to give me based on how profitable it is for them, but unfortunately, that is where the US health care industry is. Insurance only complicates the picture, because congress (in their infinite wisdom) decided that they were exempt from from antitrust legislation when they wanted to start acquiring health care companies and serve on boards of hospitals and pharmseutical companies. I wish I knew why (if you look at our collective EOB's) that the medical bills my husband and I have in 2025 would have been billed at close to $2 Million (the out-of-pocket cost), but the providers accepted the insurance rate to the tune of $18,000 (for the same services). This is why nobody can survive without insurance. It is something I'm having a hard time getting my head around because it makes absolutely no sense at all.
-
Hi Patricia, yep. The whole thing is crooked. FWIW, it isn't capitalism, since RockePharma has successfully used government force to outlaw competition and substitution. It's therefore corporatism, aka the textbook definition of that unmentionable F system that Mussolini and Adolf pushed.
-
-
-
-
-
https://time.com/7306009/tennessee-prenatal-care-medical-ethics-defense-act/
-
-
WHAT CHRISTIAN VALUES?????
-
The ones they make up to support their hatred -kind of like extremist Muslims do with Sharia law. And I wonder… if a woman is pregnant due to rape or incest, they don’t allow her to abort…AND they won’t treat?? Who is this christ they follow? Make it make sense.
-
That's horrible but it's his choice. Such a doctor needs to be boycotted though.