Doctor Treating Pregnant Women with Drug to Prevent Lesbianism

Dan Savage has the jarring details:

New "Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New—of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University—isn't just trying to prevent lesbianism by treating pregnant women with an experimental hormone. She's also trying to prevent the births of girls who display an 'abnormal' disinterest in babies, playing with girls' toys, becoming mothers, and whose 'career preferences' are deemed too 'masculine.' … So no more Elena Kagans, no more Donna Shalalas, no more Constance McMillens, no more Martina Navratilovas—because all women everywhere need to grow up to suck dick, crank out babies, and stick to women's work. And the existence of adult women who are clearly not interested in 'becoming someone's wife' and 'making babies' constitutes a medical emergency that requires immediate intervention."

Comments

  1. Dev says

    If this news is true, then this “doctor” should be immediately disbarred. Exposing an unborn child to exogenous hormones with unknown side-effects, in order to prevent something that isn’t a disease is just sickening. Somebody in the state, please report this crime immediately. It is sad how doctors quickly lose sight of the most important rule simply because of monetary gain and professional advancement.

    Primum non nocere.

  2. says

    To teach the bitch mother a lesson, I hope the baby is born with its’ arms growing out of her head, and her face and butt-cheeks reversed.

    And then she can carry the fugly thing around like Trig Palin.

  3. nick says

    Dev:
    Remember -this witch doctor is practicing in the great state of Florida- enough said!
    No one is going to report it down there.
    Perhaps Miss Crist can go after her.

  4. NewEng says

    If any of you would take the time to read the research and not Mr Savage’s interpretation, you may see what this drug study is trying to prevent. Although I would not personally subject my unborn child to the risks of dex, I think with increased exposure to hormones through food, ect. may held with genital defects in newborns. Is Mr Savage qualified to paraphrase medical research? He should stick to advice on things he knows best.

  5. Rad says

    This from a female doctor that appears to have several chromosomes on the masculine side. Doctor, doth protesteth a little too much? She looks like a jilted lover.

    Interesting, she covered duct tape lesbians, did she ever consider lipstick? And interesting, if it turns out to be a baby boy overloaded with female hormones… hmmm… might we have the actual Gay Baby Doctor?

    If you knew you could have a fabulously gay embryo, I know I would certainly consider it.

  6. Icon says

    “…because all women everywhere need to grow up to suck dick,…” WTF, if I had found women who would suck dick when I was a young man, perhaps I would have married one. Most of my married “massage” clients come to me because of total lack of interest from their wives.

  7. tony x says

    She deserves a bullet to the brain by a Government Execution squad after trial for being a monster – this is as bad the Nazi medical attrocities.

    ////////

    She of course is so blind that she does not realize being a Doctor was MALE / MASCULINE profession not very long ago.

    Like I said — Monster.
    Far too many Sociopaths get advanced degrees in our society.

  8. Dan says

    Tony X, go take a pill and have a nice lie-down. Calling for the murder of anyone is a revolting, idiotic thing to do. We lock up those who murder abortion doctors and we don’t need this kind of rhetoric one bit. Can it.

  9. TampaZeke says

    Yeah, because she is such a delicate flower herself.

    And why then is she a DOCTOR? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for her to maintain a traditional woman’s role as a nurse or midwife?

  10. Jim says

    I don’t know. I read the full Savage article and it just makes me heartsick. This isn’t a hormonal problem, it’s a hate problem. I was so lucky to have parents who just loved me – even tho my interests in play, etc, were pretty girly. The result? Yeah, I’m gay. But I have lots of love and support and a great life. Those babies need someone to love them, and accept them, and help them find their way in a world that is unnecessarily cruel. They definitely don’t need exogenous hormones in utero. That doc should have her license pulled, stat.

  11. Beef and Fur says

    She needs to take this hormone so she won’t have a desire to be an ultra masculine doctor anymore and get back in the kitchen, subservient, making sammiches all day….

  12. romeo says

    It won’t work, and her patients (victims) will sue the hell out of her and the hospital. And the judges will throw out any disclaimers that were signed. Wait and see. This will be big news several years down the line.

  13. Robert in SF says

    Sometimes my comments don’t show up, weird. This is a less eloquent re-post of my earlier lost comment…

    Scott, your comment was a hateful, cruel, and inhuman thing to say. To wish harm on a baby just to punish the mother is repugnant! And then to cross over and bring in Trig Palin into it, that’s just vicious. You are an ass, plain and simple.

    You don’t use a baby, in this case a baby born with Down’s Syndrome, obviously no fault of its own, in your response to hurt someone or express your outrage. That’s just an awful, disgusting thing to do, casually posted or not.

    I know it’s easy to make off the cuff, casual comments without a lot of thought but with a lot of passion when we read an article that gets our blood boiling. But you stepped way over the line.

    And if you really believe what you said, I mean really believe it and wish for it, not out of knee-jerk defense for posting something stupid and don’t want to admit you were wrong, but really believe it in your core, then you are not right in the head….that’s sick.

  14. David says

    “If any of you would take the time to read the research and not Mr Savage’s interpretation, you may see what this drug study is trying to prevent.”

    Why assume that no one else has read the research?

    “It appears many women and children exposed to dexamethasone through this off-label use are not being enrolled in controlled clinical trials with IRB oversight, in spite of a persistent consensus among experts that this is the only way this treatment should be happening.”

    The quote “One group of researchers, however, seems to be suggesting that prenatal dex also might prevent affected girls from turning out to be homosexual or bisexual.”

    Is not Savage’s interpretation, it comes from Bioethics Forum –
    Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754blogid=140#ixzz0sM8TvnDZ

    “In the same article, Meyer-Bahlburg suggests that treatments with prenatal dexamethasone might cause these girls’ behavior to be closer to the expectation of heterosexual norms: “Long term follow-up studies of the behavioral outcome will show whether dexamethasone treatment also prevents the effects of prenatal androgens on brain and behavior.”

    In a paper published just this year in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New and her colleague, pediatric endocrinologist Saroj Nimkarn of Weill Cornell Medical College, go further, constructing low interest in babies and men – and even interest in what they consider to be men’s occupations and games – as “abnormal,” and potentially preventable with prenatal dex:

    “Gender-related behaviors, namely childhood play, peer association, career and leisure time preferences in adolescence and adulthood, maternalism, aggression, and sexual orientation become masculinized in 46,XX girls and women with 21OHD deficiency [CAH]. These abnormalities have been attributed to the effects of excessive prenatal androgen levels on the sexual differentiation of the brain and later on behavior.” Nimkarn and New continue: “We anticipate that prenatal dexamethasone therapy will reduce the well-documented behavioral masculinization . . .”

    It seems more than a little ironic to have New, one of the first women pediatric endocrinologists and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, constructing women who go into “men’s” fields as “abnormal.” And yet it appears that New is suggesting that the “prevention” of “behavioral masculinization” is a benefit of treatment to parents with whom she speaks about prenatal dex.”

    It is clear that Meyer-Bahlburg is using fear of a lesbian daughter to sell this experimental, and insufficiently monitored treatment she provides to parents – in short, she’s using homophobia to line her pockets.

    Her license should be removed asap.

    One more relevant quote:
    “But the use of prenatal dexamethasone treatments for CAH represents, to our knowledge, the first systematic medical effort attached to a “paradigm” of attempting in utero to reduce rates of homosexuality, bisexuality, and “low maternal interest.”

    Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140#ixzz0sM9tJ09L

  15. Tom says

    Where are the outraged stem cell ignorami? Tampering with God’s will through manipulation of a developing fetus? Where is the outrage? Oh, never mind – I forgot. We’re fags.

  16. TANK says

    Hmmmm. It’s reckless of the parents to rely on untested hormone “treatments” in an attempt to make sure that their baby’s sexual orientation is heterosexual given the chance of it causing developmental problems. But, I don’t consider fetuses people, or sentient…so it only matters later on if they had done something that would cause the child problems when it became a person; then their culpability is undeniable. But this goes both ways…if gay parents and heterosexuals want gay children, they should be allowed to have them if and when the treatment becomes available (though, honestly, I don’t think many would avail themselves of that option…but some would). Or white children by black parents, black children by white parents…on and on and on with a purely unscientific and prejudiced/bigoted selection criteria.

    I’m for abortion rights. So, if I’m for terminating the fetus at the will of the mother for any reason, would I also be obligated to endorse genetically modifying it to the parent’s specifications? Designer babies…the upside to that is that potentially, we could eliminate harmful birth defects, raise IQ’s (and lower birth rates world wide)…

  17. says

    Robert, I wasn’t making fun of Trig Palin. What I meant is that the mother will be forced to carry the baby around for a good couple years – which also means that every time she has to look into the butt-face of the baby, she’ll be reminded of how stupid her decision to “de-gay” her baby was.

    I’m sure the mother is one of those fundies running around screaming “being gay is a choice” – but she’s going to “fix” her baby….”just in case”. Kooks will do anything reckless to harm a gay person, even their unborn child. And with that, the mother deserves nothing more than a deformed baby that’ll require twice as much attention and care compared to a normal baby who wasn’t fucked with before birth.

  18. Dev says

    I suggest you read Dr. Alice Dreger’s excellent column. Quoting an article of hers: “Having a child is not like taking a spouse; there is no mutual agreement entered into. It is up (to) the parent to make the commitment. And to make the commitment by saying, “I’m willing to have you, but only if you are a boy, and a straight boy at that, and a straight boy with blue eyes and a very high IQ” is, frankly, to not really make the commitment that parenting requires.”

  19. TANK says

    There is no mutual agreement entered into because these aren’t two people, but one making a decision (or in many cases, not even that). If a person can choose when they want to have a child or if they want to have it, why can’t they choose what kind of child they’d like to have? Would you say the same thing about people who enter into relationships? Surely people who enter into relationships of their own accord pick and choose what they want in a partner and what they’re willing to overlook. So what are the moral implications of designer babies if they could be manufactured? Lack of diversity, perhaps, making the population more susceptible to disease…maybe. Elimination of some characteristics from the gene pool (e.g., skin color, low IQ’s, religiosity, homosexuality/bisexuality etc.), needs to be weighed against the benefit of eradicating genetic disease and birth defects. It is already the case that parents abort fetuses that are known to have birth defects…is that wrong of them? That they don’t want a child with downs syndrome? Should they not be parents because they aren’t prepared to raise a child with downs syndrome, Dr. Dreger’s?

    Further, love is conditional from parent to child as it is. Look at all of the parents who abandon their lgbt children because of their religious values. Clearly that’s wrong and unpardonable. but would it be wrong to optimize a child’s chance of success by genetically engineering a desired outcome? There isn’t a parent alive that would say that they will love their kid no matter what happens, and what that child becomes. And to be a parent or even a good parent doesn’t require that the parents don’t care about what the child becomes or the traits that it has.

  20. Dev says

    You are obviously not a parent, Tank, if you can say such a thing as “There isn’t a parent alive that would say that they will love their kid no matter what happens, and what that child becomes”.

  21. Bill says

    Yet we have gay people graduating every year in the sciences from colleges all over the world and they won’t even dare think of a way for gay couples to have children. Haterosexuals have always been a threat to gay people. There has never been a time when haterosexuals let gay people be on an equal playing field with them so don’t think they wouldn’t adort a gay child. Gay people need to be in control of our lives from start to finish. You won’t hear this from a gay activist or in a “gay” publication because they are cowards. They will never acknowledge haterosexual opression. They want to keep the conversation the way haterosexuals want it and that is on christians and conservatives when in fact it’s haterosexuals. Where are the other gay people looking out for gay people’s interest first and foremost? It’s time gay people stop carrying haterosexuals’ water.

  22. TANK says

    Of course I’m not, and never will be. Children are not for me. But don’t appeal to some intangible, inexplicable “parenthood” thing to bolster your crumby argument. Be rational. Love is conditional in reality, and always has been. Ask someone if they were to know that their child would become a rapist whether they would abort it… Parents raise their kids to be unethical bigots (redundant) in the united states. Are they not fit to be parents? In this country they have that right…

  23. Dev says

    Parenthood is not some inexplicable concept. It is the commitment to become a custodian to a child, to work and organize your life around welfare and development of that child. It is a commitment, requiring the custodian to make personal sacrifices for the good of the ward. This commitment has always been the at the core of the philosophical understanding of parenthood. It doesn’t matter if you are a biological parent, an adoptive parent, or an institution in charge of the care of a child. Just because unethical bigots in your country reproduce does not mean they are “fit” or “unfit” to be parents, the personal qualities of the parent do not matter as long as they are willing and able uphold their end of the commitment and the rights of the child in their care. This is why we have family law, which is derived from the philosophical understanding of parenthood. The welfare of the child is always paramount, and raising your child in a manner that is deemed unlawful (such as raising a child to beat up homosexuals) is actually grounds for having that child taken by social services. Even naming your child in a manner detrimental to the welfare of that child is grounds for losing custody.

    Just because bad parenting happens in practice does not mean it is either acceptable nor condoned by law.

  24. TANK says

    “Parenthood is not some inexplicable concept. It is the commitment to become a custodian to a child, to work and organize your life around welfare and development of that child.”

    Which isn’t inconsistent with the conditional love that prospective parents who abort fetuses with downs syndrome exhibit. Nor is it inconsistent with designer babies.

    “the personal qualities of the parent do not matter as long as they are willing and able uphold their end of the commitment and the rights of the child in their care”

    A qualification. So the personal qualities (being an unethical scumbag and bigot, for example) don’t matter so long as they are willing to sacrifice for the welfare and development of the child…well then clearly you have a very eccentric view of what the welfare and development of a child amounts to, for if they can be good parents and yet indotrinate their children in a wealth of harmful memes that inhibit their ability to reason…and cause them to do bad things. Or does that “commitment” you’ve vaguely defined preclude the parent from being itself…transcending itself somehow? that sounds even spookier than the last “intangible”.

    “The welfare of the child is always paramount, and raising your child in a manner that is deemed unlawful (such as raising a child to beat up homosexuals) is actually grounds for having that child taken by social services.”

    not really. Most people who beat up homosexuals couldn’t have been legally taken by child services. The phelps clan, for example, will never have their children taken by child services.

    So the welfare of the child and “parenting” is somehow inconsistent with eugenics (not this fledgling instance…but in principle)? How so?

  25. Dev says

    Like I said, just because bad parenting happens in practice does not mean it is condoned by law. In the vast majority of cases the state simply does not have the legal resources to prosecute. Let’s take this Phelps clan as an example, if the state can prove in a court of law that the adults are teaching their children to act in an illegal manner then those are grounds for loss of custody. But of course herein lies the problem, you realize how difficult proving this would be. The state cannot simply suppose that just because a parent acts in an illegal manner that they will automatically teach their children to do the same.

    A thief will not automatically teach his children to steal. A murderer will not automatically teach his children to murder.

    The likelihood may be there, but it is not a foregone conclusion and is therefore inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.

    And I did not state that I am against designer babies. You want a baby with blue eyes, and the technology is there and proven to carry no additional risk to the fetus? Go ahead. What I am against is the introduction of an untested and potentially dangerous medical procedure to a fetus with the goal of “correcting” a non-pathological condition. And if as a parent you willingly and knowingly subject your unborn child to such a procedure? Then yes, that is grounds for litigation. US courts have ruled that children, once carried to term, have a right to be born healthy and past evidence of neglect or harmful actions are sufficient in determining future harm.

  26. TANK says

    “Like I said, just because bad parenting happens in practice does not mean it is condoned by law. In the vast majority of cases the state simply does not have the legal resources to prosecute. Let’s take this Phelps clan as an example, if the state can prove in a court of law that the adults are teaching their children to act in an illegal manner then those are grounds for loss of custody.”

    There’s nothing illegal about being a bigot. And many of the homes that raised gay bashers and parents that take their kids to churches with preachers that tacitly and explicitly use rhetoric that incites violence against lgbt people…are completely within the parameters of the law. This kind of programming (sexist, homophibic programming) is legal, and its end result is gaybashing and domestic violence.

    Yeah, a thief and a murderer may not teach their kids to kill and murder (and many exort not to…)…but study after study after study validates the golden rule of being a good parent and raising good kids: act the way you want your kids to act… Be the person you want your kid to be…want him or her to play sports? Play sports. Want him/her to be a reader? Read. Want him/her to be a critical thinker? Want him/her to eat healthy foods and not smoke, and be thin, active, and healthy…and on and on. The problem with parenting in developed nations is that parents don’t usually have the personalities and habits required to raise their children properly in light of that reality. It’s not about talking; it’s about doing. And while those are true, a bigot will usually always teach his or her kids to be bigoted…because bigots never think that they’re bigots…for example, no christianist bigot thinks that they’re in the wrong….nevah! They think they’re morally empowered by magical “revelation”…the right thing to do is to teach their kids the most harmful aspects of the bible or qu’ran. But, as the jam said…”that’s entertainment!”

    “What I am against is the introduction of an untested and potentially dangerous medical procedure to a fetus with the goal of “correcting” a non-pathological condition.”

    Of course…that’s a no-brainer and entirely uncontroversial. This right here is reprehensible because it’s tested. But my question is if procedures were tested, and could alter a child’s sexual orientation to the orientation preferred by the parents safely, do they have the right to do it?

    And as a side note, no one seems to have any real problem with altering a child’s worldview to fit the parents religiofascist whim…but get all up in arms about eugenics. Meme exposure in children is a form of eugenics.

  27. caduceus13 says

    I am a gay man, an obstetrician-gynecologist, and I worked with Maria New when I was in medical school. This article, unfortunately, completely misrepresents her work. She has spent over 50 years researching the genetic and hormonal causes of various forms of intersex disorders, and pioneered the use of dexamethasone for prevention of the virilizing effects of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This treatment is now widely used for women known to be carrying an affected fetus, though it is true that not all of the long term effects are known. It is also true that some of her research is interested in whether or not behaviors, and not just anatomy, are affected by prenatal hormone exposure and dexamethasone treatment. The big assumption that everyone is making here, and I can personally vouch that it is an incorrect assumption, is that she WANTS to be able to prevent masculinized behaviors. That is not the goal of her research; she is exploring a phenomena that was noted incidentally in earlier research.

    Dr. New is 80 years old and not particularly interested in being politically correct. She also would be surprised that her research is causing such a furor. For better or worse, she thinks like a scientist; she finds a hypothesis to test, tests it, and publishes the results.

    Incidentally, one of her primary co-collaborators is gay.

    Whether or not a parent should try to prevent their child from having ambiguous genitalia (NOT just being homosexual) is a separate highly charged topic that I’m not even going to touch.

    I can understand why some of Dr. New’s research is controversial. But the half-truths in these articles paint her out to be a demon that she simply is not.

  28. says

    Advocates for Informed Choice is a non-profit organization advocating for the legal and human rights of children with intersex conditions or differences of sex development, like the ones in this story. We work in collaboration with bioethicists, doctors, parents, affected adults, and many others. If you are interested in taking action to help protect these children, and to be sure that possible human rights violations are investigated, please join our Facebook page at http://ow.ly/20wTY or sign up for our Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/aiclegal. You can also donate to support our work at http://aiclegal.org/we-need-your-support…

  29. Jeff in Orlando says

    But wouldn’t this just do the opposite if the baby was male, and block the androgens turning the baby gay? There are a few drugs out there that block male genitalia formation. Hormones of any kind are not recommended by the FDA during pregnancy unless absolutely necessary.

  30. shae says

    This shit scares me….. they are trying to destroy us at birth……ive thought of this alot and if they create something that they inject in pregnant women that will stop children from being gay i will destroy all the labs and kill all the doctors…..its so fuckin scary and i dont want gay people to die out…..

Leave A Reply