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”.

  • Weirdfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    167
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ArachnidMania@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Weirdfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • HipHoboHarold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Jeredin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            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”.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      they could care less about how many people get harmed or die from their policies …

      Oh, they care. They prefer the harm and death.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Potato_in_my_anus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • CafecitoHippo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you have a kid, giving up everything including their welfare and education just so you can move is kind of abusive.

          • NABDad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

  • regalia@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    When it’s deemed illegal for you to exist, I don’t think that’s a political viewpoint anymore.

    • citsuah
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes it is. You’re just conditioned to think politics is this inconsequential mental game that has no impact on people’s lives.

  • Uranium3006@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    he is an internally displaced refugee. that’s what it’s come to now with all this. we need to liberate nazi-occupied states

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if some children in Louisiana won’t be able to get heart transplants, it’s okay because these children were already born.

  • agedbeef@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    That fucking sucks he has to run away but also damn if he isn’t probably the hottest doctor in Louisiana…. Well not anymore

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.”

          • TheActualDevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Vuraniute@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • cnut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

          • yata@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            Or Israel, with a bunch of parties and it’s a mess.

            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?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I usually say they deserve the repercussions of their terrible values. When it affects innocent kids, it makes me sad.

    • geosoco@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

    • query@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, what it actually says is: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

        To quote from the bill:

        1. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

        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.

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students […].

          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.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

            • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah but then how we would take things out of context then? Mindless fabrication of information? Lying? Bollocks I say!

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • oldbaldgrumpy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.