Turns out it’s spelled “Fern Hill.” Fern Hill is a blogger. A bossy, brash blogger, who doesn’t like people like me and often singles me out, met with much gleeful sarcasm from her minions. I asked her for a coffee a while back, simply to see that we are both people (it was not an effort to make her pro-life, goodness me, no). She said no.
She is busy tweeting the names of all the members of the Christian Medical Dental Society:
@CMDSCanada are shy about divulging members but want to impose their values on us. Know any members? Post names with#PatientRights tag.
Meanwhile, Fern Hill is a pseudonym. I just wanted to name this hypocrisy. Especially since “Fern Hill” has made a blogging living on spotting the purported hypocrisy in others.
My name–my real name–is Andrea Mrozek, and when you have questions or concerns–you know where to find me.
Fern Hill. But not the Fern Hill who does the blogging, you’ll note. This grassy knoll isn’t so mean.
by 
I wonder if she’s as nasty in person as she comes off online. Probably not. It’s much easier to be mean and vindictive online.
And they wonder why prolife doctors don’t “out” themselves. It would be one thing if we lived in a world where the fern hills were actually tolerant of people who hold viewpoints opposite to their own. But unfortunately we don’t live in a world where people are willing to just live and let live. Honestly, if you fundamentally disagree with your doctor, the best solution for all concerned is to find a different doctor, not to demand that your doctor kowtow to your own worldview.
But that is just too easy a solution now, isn’t it? Instead we need to demand that all doctors follow the agenda into the culture of death, whether their conscience says it’s okay or not.
You know, I don’t really think about Fern Hill all that much. But when I do, I tend to feel bad for her. She’s clearly very angry. And perhaps hurt.
She writes about topics that are obviously important to her, but she writes in such a disgusting, vulgar, sometimes unclear manner, that I wonder what the point is of it. She violates basically every rule on persuasive writing. So is she writing for herself? Power to her. But she’s not persuading anyone with opposing views over at DammitJanet.
She makes it a point to write about others in a childish, derogatory and demeaning way. Which is really too bad. It’s unkind and crass. Not very classy. And it’s not much of a legacy to leave. And her identity will become public someday, I have no doubt of that. And then every time someone Googles her, they’ll be exposed to …that stuff.
I don’t know. There’s probably a reason for all this rage and vulgarity, but who knows what it is.
Random thoughts of the day…
She writes that way PRECISELY because she won’t sign her name to it.
Thanks Andrea
Whatever happened to choice?
Her hypocrisy isn’t just in her outing people while she remains safely anonymous. She doesn’t believe in choice of doctors. If I want a doctor who shares my beliefs, it’s my body, my choice, isn’t it? Oh, guess not. Choice is not for abortion, not for the doctor you want.
My favourite part of earlier twitter exchange was being told I had thrown a “hissy fit” for asking what’s your name?, no really, what’s your real name? Taught to kindergartners everywhere, this question was apparently throwing me over the line into histrionics. Totally hilarious. I wish there were more 5-year-olds in this world of blogging. It would be more kind, more to the point, most likely more clear and way more fun.
Keep shining light, Andrea. Some of us do read and appreciate the work you do.
Fern HIll’s “name and shame” approach is particularly vile because it has nothing to do with following the truth or civil debate over the issues – it’s an attempt to create the “angry mob” effect, and to silence the CMDS through personal harassment. Despicable and completely unfair.
Andrea, do you know who Fern Hill is, since you asked her out for tea? If not, maybe part of the reason she turned you down is to preserve her anonymity – so precious to her own fight, ironically.
My name is Dr. Sheila Rutledge Harding. I live and work in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I am a proud member of CMDS. I’d be pleased to discuss the issue of conscientious refusal — which is, at its core, my commitment to do no harm to my patients, even if/when they ask me to — with anyone.
Dear Sheila:
How can one best get in touch with you? I would be interested in pursuing this topic further for a media outlet I lead.
Best,
Fergus
There’s something I’m not getting here. Perhaps you could clear it up.
1) Members of CMDS Canada are proudly Christian (and anti-choice), although I’m not sure what a Christian dental practice differs from other ones.
2) But naming them (so patients seeking contraception and/or abortion know who to avoid) is somehow a Bad Thing. Why is that?
3) Why go into a profession in the first place if it’s going to shock your conscience? Do Jehovah’s witnesses work in blood banks? Vegans in meat-packing plants? Muslims on hog farms? Why not find some other line of work, people?
Fern Hill is a bit single-minded, but compared to you folks she’s a Renaissance woman.
Hi John,
There are some folks around here who could answer your questions better than I, but I’ll offer some thoughts in addition to Melissa’s
1) Being a Christian is about a lot more than just the abortion issue. CMDS members, both physicians and dentists, are committed to respecting the dignity of their patients and treating all persons in a respectful way. Your label of “anti-choice” is misleading, and points to a big misunderstanding in this whole discussion: The physicians are NOT refusing to discuss the options with their patients. They want to be clear and honest that they believe contraception/abortion/suicide are harmful, and they will not directly participate in harming their patients. They will not hide information from their patients, but they will not sign their name to a referral that will put their patients in harm’s way either. In practice, this usually means that after discussing, for example, family planning options, the physician would direct a patient to the nearest clinic to receive oral contraceptives, without needing to provide a referral. This method is actually quicker for patients than going through the referral process, too.
2) If only Fern Hill were naming physicians to help patients avoid them! The fear here is that physicians are being named to be targeted and reprimanded for refusing to harm their patients.
3) This opens up a very important question: What is medicine? Does it include killing? Does it include altering the body to suit our desires? Or is it fundamentally about healing? If it’s about healing, than why should someone be required to participate in abortion if they want to be a healer?
Hi Mr. Baglow,
I’m not sure that I’m the best person to try to clear up your questions, but I’ll give it a go.
1) I’m sure that you know that anti-choice is a derogatory term. Those of us who are pro-life (or anti-abortion if you must) are not opposed to choice in general, just opposed to the choice to kill. (We’re opposed to rape and stealing as well.) Anti-choice could be used to refer to your side of the divide as well, as people who support abortion tend to not support a doctor’s choice to limit her practice to not prescribing contraceptives or referring for abortions.
2)I don’t suppose that naming doctors would be such a bad thing if there weren’t a group of pro-choicers who were dead set on taking them down. But when you have a small group of people (ie the Radical Handmaids) who are committed to taking these doctors down, to bullying these doctors in a media that is quite receptive to the pro-choice cause and quite hostile to the pro-life one. Nobody wants to get caught in one of those smear campaigns, which understandably makes them reluctant to make their names known publicly.
3) There are plenty of doctors in the CMDS who are old enough that they were doctors before abortion was decriminalized in this country. And even then, there have been assurances from the CMA since that time that, if a doctor does not wish to participate in a woman’s abortion, he does not have to.
4) There are plenty of PATIENTS around who would like doctors who don’t participate in abortions, who would like doctors who would look for another solution than death for the baby if something goes a little awry with the pregnancy.
Hope I’ve helped to clear things up a bit.
Sheila, thank you. totally agree.
Melissa and Mary, thanks for being so reasonable in the face of the opposite. Also totally agree. In engaging this even a little, Voltaire comes to mind: ““Madness is to have erroneous perceptions and to reason correctly from them.” And that’s where I’ll leave this.
Andrea, please address this: http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.ca/2015/03/ffs-near-defamation-is-that-thing.html
Thank you.
Hello Fern Hill,
I’m a lawyer, and I agree with you, this does not appear to be a case of defamation.
However, if you chose to pursue any type of litigation, you would of course have to do it in your personal capacity, using your legal name. Your association with your pseudonym “Fern Hill” and your association with your blog DammitJanet, would become permanent public record.
Kind regards,
Faye Sonier
(Please note, of course, that the comments above are not provided as legal advice.)
Why don’t you just use your real name? What are you hiding from?
Fern, I’m happy to address anything with you, in person. Invitation for coffee still stands.
PS Since so much is misinterpreted over text/twitter/email, I’ll add this is not a sarcastic comment.