Instead, the medical establishment now promotes homosexuality as being natural and healthy. Deviant sexual practices are equated with normal heterosexual behaviors. We’re now being told that it’s only a problem when homosexuals engage in “unprotected sex”.

While throwing their unconditional support behind the LGBT movement, the hospitals also work hard to attract the “LGBT community” as patients. Major hospitals now cater to the wide range of “unusual” health issues resulting from common LGBT sexual practices and lifestyle. At the same, they advertise that they are providing LGBT patients a “safe” environment – safe from any information that might disturb their proclivities.

Here is one of the many “gay health” posts on the Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital website. They are proud to receive a high rating from the radical Human Rights Campaign.

It all started at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC).

As we reported in 2015, Dr. Church brought up his concerns internally, to BIDMC hospital officials and staff, not publicly.

He cited irrefutable medical evidence that high-risk sexual practices common to the LGBT community lead to (among other things) a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS, STD's, hepatitis, parasitic infections, anal cancers, and psychiatric disorders. Promoting such behavior, he said, is contrary to the higher mission of the healthcare facility to protect the public welfare and encourage healthy lifestyles.

BIDMC never disputed the truth of Dr. Church’s medical statements. They did not claim that Dr. Church ever discussed this with patients, or treated patients any differently if they were involved in these behaviors.

Instead Dr. Church was told that his admonitions about homosexual behavior constituted “discrimination and harassment,” were “offensive to BIDMC staff,” and could not be tolerated.

In March, 2015, the hospital notified him he was being formally expelled from the staff. The appeal process, which lasted until December 2015, included detailed testimony by Dr. Church and other medical experts supporting him. The expulsion was ultimately upheld by the hospital’s Board of Directors. Members of the hospital’s “LGBT community” (a so-called “protected class” in Massachusetts) claimed they were “offended” by Dr. Church’s remarks about the medical consequences of typical LGBT sexual practices and behaviors.

In November, 2015, even before BIDMC had completed its appeal process, Dr. Church was notified by Boston’s Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital (BWFH)that his reappointment was not being renewed; he was effectively being terminated.

He was told that his termination is “related to your dispute with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center” and that his “conduct” there “does not comport with professional standards and ethics.”

Dr. Church requested a hearing to appeal his expulsion, as allowed by the hospital by-laws. The hearing began in June 2016 and was finally adjudicated one year later – in June 2017.

At his hearing, BWFH doctors told Dr. Church that his statements made at BIDMC about the unhealthy nature of homosexuality were “unprofessional” and constitute “bad medicine.”  They said that there is no innate unhealthiness to LGBT behavior, but that “unprotected sex” is the reason for any LGBT-related health problems. They ignored the information from the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which he presented to them to back up his statements.

Dr. Church and his expert witnesses fiercely denied that he indulged in any “unprofessional conduct” or “bad medicine.” These claims against him, he said, are purposefully drawn from an absurd oversimplification and complete misrepresentation of the facts. It’s well documented that LGBT behaviors statistically result in an enormous increase in HIV/AIDS, syphilis, anal cancer, hepatitis, depression, suicide, domestic violence, and many other problems. In particular, as Dr. Church pointed out, it has a lot to do with promiscuity, a wide range of risk-taking behaviors, and the type of sex, i.e., anal intercourse. The “safe sex” message has been around for decades, and yet the latest statistics show no decline in the disease transmission rates (and even increases in certain STDs), especially among the homosexual males in the younger age groups and racial minorities. This cannot be explained away by lack of “education” or availability of condoms.

But unfortunately, all of this was ignored and rejected in both the BIDMC and BWFH hearings.

Dr. Church’s position makes common sense both from a medical and public health standpoint. He was punished with an unprecedented level of censorship for views held by other medical experts and supported by medical and scientific fact.

Thus, because their case against Dr. Church was so weak, the hospitals used very dishonest and overly aggressive tactics to get him removed.

Massachusetts, like most states, provides in its statutes (Ch. 111 Sec. 203) the requirement that hospitals have a “medical peer review” process. Its purpose is to respond to reports of conduct by a healthcare provider that indicates “incompetency in his specialty” or “might be inconsistent or harmful to good patient care” – and determine if his privileges should be suspended “in the best interests of patient care.”

The statutes also require (Ch. 111 Sec. 204) that the “proceedings, reports, and records” of the peer review process be strictly confidential – even immune from subpoena by a court!

Many hospitals around the country abuse this process. They dishonestly use the medical peer review process as a way punish or remove doctors for ideological or political reasons that have nothing to do with incompetence or patient care. Since all the proceedings and documentation surrounding the process is by law confidential, the doctor is unable to publicly defend himself.

The use of “sham peer reviews” to punish physicians has been strongly denounced for years by groups such as the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons(AAPS).

Yet this is exactly what happened to Dr. Church at BIDMC, BWFH, and Beth Israel-Needham Hospital. When it came to actually caring for patients, none of the hospitals ever accused him of medical incompetence, or of endangering patients in any way. All of Dr. Church’s comments about homosexuality were within internal hospital communications involving administration and staff, and never with patients.

Yet BIDMC, BWFH, and Beth Israel-Needham Hospital labeled every single memo and document dealing with this process in any way as “Peer Review / Confidential.” This was clearly to protect the hospital’s reputation, not Dr. Church or his patients. He wanted complete transparency and public disclosure of everything.

Both BIDMC and BWFH held hearings after Dr. Church’s expulsion as part of the peer review “appeal” process.

The hearings were not “legal court cases” but attorneys from both sides were allowed. Dr. Church had one lawyer. The hospitals each brought in whole teams of lawyers from high-priced Boston firms. Both hospitals clearly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars each on legal fees, presented mountains of paperwork, and endless, often trivial, “exhibits” against him, to overwhelm the process. Someday, we’d love to see all that!  That kind of legal intimidation and unlimited budget make it nearly impossible for even a highly respected physician like Dr. Church to come out on top.

On top of all the above, we were told that both appeal hearings were conducted by a panel of hospital-selected doctors and staff in an absurd, mostly hostile, “kangaroo court” style. They often curtailed the time allotted for Dr. Church and his attorney and extended the time for the hospital people. Dr. Church’s character witnesses were treated with disrespect. Key testimony was simply tossed out or not allowed. In short, we were told, their behavior clearly suggested that the appeal “hearing” was simply an aggravating formality that the hospital by-laws required. They had no intention of looking at the facts in any unbiased manner.

If anything, will prove to be a significant precedent for the LGBT agenda in medicine. There were no criminal charges, no patient safety issues, no incompetence, or even proof that Dr. Church was incorrect in what he said. ONLY in opposing their ideology.

As Dr. Church recently said,

Where is the discrimination here? Not by Dr. Church!