- Jul
28
2012
The Eighth Circuit's affirmation of South Dakota's deformed consent law for abortion is bad. Want to know how bad? Read Michelle Goldberg's assessment in The Daily Beast. She finds the court has declared it legal for the state to lie to women:
At issue is a 2005 law that, among other things, requires doctors to warn women that abortion would subject them to increased risk of “[d]epression and related psychological distress†and “[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.†This would be perfectly legitimate if it were true, but the vast preponderance of medical and academic research shows that it is not. “The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental-health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy,†concluded an American Psychological Association task force that studied the issue. (Italics theirs) [Michelle Goldberg, "South Dakota Legalizes Lies with Suicide Warning for Abortion Seekers," The Daily Beast, 2012.07.27].
Goldberg finds the court opening the door for states to base policy on the infamously mendacious pseudoresearch of Priscilla Coleman and other ideology-driven liars. For example, in one of her major number-fudging exercises, Coleman assumes that abortion's mental health harms can travel backward in time:
Coleman and her coauthors, it turned out, didn’t just rely on mental illness that manifested after abortion—they counted mental-health diagnoses across women’s entire lifetime. Thus if a depressed woman had an abortion, the abortion was treated as a risk factor for her depression, even if the depression came first. A review by the journal’s editor, Stanford’s Alan F. Schatzberg, and Harvard’s Ronald C. Kessler concurred with Steinberg and Finer’s critique. “[T]he Coleman et al. (2009) analysis does not support their assertions that abortions led to psychopathology in the … data,†they wrote [Goldberg, 2012.07.27].
Yet the 8th Circuit abandons truth and justice and declares it the American way to let states lie... and to compel medical professionals to lie to their patients.
52 Responses to “South Dakota Forces Doctors to Lie to Women”
Regardless of how a person feels about abortion, it's scary the court didn't concern itself with the reliability of the data.
“We express no opinion as to whether some of the studies are more reliable than others; instead, we hold only that the state legislature, rather than a federal court, is in the best position to weigh the divergent results and come to a conclusion about the best way to protect its populace,†the court wrote.
When you consider all of the things that went on during our last legislative session (Highway Patrol roaming the halls, claims that one legislator threatened the other, leadership expelling one lawmaker from caucus and making him "sit in time out" (moving his desk) on the House floor, I think the claim could be made that our Legislature has its own boatload of emotional/mental health issues.
While expressing such concern for women's mental health by passing restrictive legislation that they likely don't need or want, perhaps lawmakers should do something to ensure they don't act so psychotic next January.
Well, after reading the courts decision it's clear they definitely did concern themselves with the reliability of the data. Michelle Goldberg cherry picked to some extent. It is strange though they would allow the law to strongly imply a casual relationship when the court acknowledges it is not proven.
"We acknowledge that these studies, like the studies relied upon by the State and Intervenors, have strengths as well as weaknesses. Like all studies on the topic, they
must make use of imperfect data that typically was collected for entirely different purposes, and they must attempt to glean some insight through the application of
sophisticated statistical techniques and informed assumptions. While the studies all agree that the relative risk of suicide is higher among women who abort compared to women who give birth or do not become pregnant, they diverge as to the extent to which other underlying factors account for that link. We express no opinion as to whether some of the studies are more reliable than others; instead, we hold only that
the state legislature, rather than a federal court, is in the best position to weigh the divergent results and come to a conclusion about the best way to protect its populace. So long as the means chosen by the state does not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions or their physicians, we have no basis to interfere."
dauGoebbels?
I had a good discussion about this with two lawyer/political types this morning both most likely what one would call more "pro-choice/women's rights" than "anti-abortion."
Even so, they explained that this decision is perhaps not unlike Roberts' decision about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Law. What the court is saying, in essence, is that it is indeed constitutional for a legislature to pass — and attempt to enforce — stupid laws, and that if the law needs to be changed, it's up to the people and/or the legislature to change it.
(I have such a hard time thinking conservatively sometimes. Good thing I have friends who can help me with these things, huh?)
Rule 1. Any excuse for conservative nonsense is valid no matter how absurd it seems to those not mired in retrograde mythology.
Whenever one side accuses the other of lying (or buying into a lie) in a debate such as this (e.g., "My data differs from yours, so therefore your data is based on a lie"), I immediately switch my mind to some completely unrelated topic.
So now, I shall begin reading the "The Writing Life" by Annie Dillard, having downloaded it earlier this evening for my Kindle. Then later, maybe a stint in the Nerd Cave, where the ham radio awaits.
But first, a hard-boiled egg. Can't read when I'm hungry.
Odd that state-mandated lying does not cross the threshold of an unconstitutional burden. The government should have an obligation to tell women the truth... or to let doctors tell patients the truth. The Coleman study used examples of women experiencing depression before having abortions as evidence that abortion causes depression; Roger Hunt gets the state to shove that study in women's faces to discourage them from having abortions; the court says that lie is o.k. Ugh!
Bill, I dig the judicial restraint it takes for judges not to replace the wisdom of legislators with their own. Indeed, the Constitution does not prohibit stupid or ineffective legislation. But isn't there some legal principle, maybe some pumped-up mutation of perjury, that would allow the judicial branch to sanction the legislative and executive branches for lying to the people?
Cory, an interesting conclusion to that part of the conversation went approximately like this: I asked roughly the same question you did, after noting that I acknowledge that the high court has the final say in our system of government and there's not really much we can do about it, even when it doesn't make any sense. My friend said, "Yeah, kind of like quantum mechanics... like it or not, that's just the way it is... even when it doesn't make any sense." That kind of helped a little ( guess.)
Well, it's not really helping because the law should be logical. The court seemed to say let the legislature do what they want since the research is muddy and it's not preventing an abortion. The court did however say some of the legitimate research supported the law, but if you read the bill it's obviously pressing a conservative agenda by referring to the fetus as an unborn human being, but none of that prevents the physician from presenting an entirely rounded view. Still Cory is right, not that I would agree with the word lie, but the constitutional threshold at a minimum should be accuracy.
Careful John you are coming close to agreeing with many right wingers about our President and the Affordable Health Care Plan. The President and Congressional Democrats said over and over again that the fine was a penality not at tax, but the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was Constitutional because it was a tax. Did he lie or was it a matter of interpretation? This is not a statement on the good or bad of the plan merely an attempt for me to better understand what you believe to be a lie by public officials. In addition did the President or Congress have the obligation to the American people to repeal the act once the Supreme Court ruled it to be a tax since it was passed on the assumption that the penality was a fine and not a tax as put forward by the President or does we just live with the intentional or unintentional lie. I included intentional lie only because the President is an acknowledged scholar on Constitutional law and taught it at the university level.
The "does we just live" is there for Jana so that she/he can continue to believe that I am an ignorant dolt that can't read more than four words or understand complex issues.
John, I'm sticking with Goldberg and with the word "lie". The Right isn't claiming it's a matter of interpretation or that the research is muddy; they are claiming the research is sufficiently clear to justify their ideological position. The research is wrong. The Right and our state government must be called on that.
Cory's right. If it's not the Court's job to call a spade a spade, then the task is ours, Joseph. We the people. If we want truth in government, we have to hold our elected officials feet to the fire when they knowingly, intentionally, and deceptively refuse to tell it.
(...this task has traditionally fallen to the 4th Estate. Here's to those of us in the media industry at long last remembering what our job is... are you listening Powers? Howie? Sibby? ...on second thought, scratch Sibby. He's a special needs case ;^)
There's a difference Joe. Calling it a tax or penalty is ultimately splitting hairs. Either way a payment is necessary. But the legislature using bad and inadequate science to make law, and then use language that's not proven is deceptive. That's a scary path for the court to allow.
So were the Democrats, by selecting the most favorable language also willing to deceive? Did Obama know the court would consider it a tax? Did they also arrogantly think the ends would justify the means? I would prefer to think not. The Supreme Court ruling was mixed so there's just no way he could have known the final interpretation. They chose their words carefully. Everybody shines their shoes. Or should!
John, sad to say, there apparantly was significant discussion on whether or not to call it a tax. For similar reasons Universal (single payer) solutions weren't even considered, even though, chances are such a solution would be by far the most demographically inclusive and financially viable (compare average American health care costs to all other nations in the free world).
No doubt the thinking was "yeah, that's the best plan, but the Republicans will never go along with another tax increase."
And you know what? In hindsight, I'm not so sure about that.
Maybe someone should have at least asked them. LOL.
I see that language more like a marketing decision. I'll bet even Joseph has shined his shoes, and probably many times. Sometimes we have to put that best foot forward.
Democrats calling a tax a penalty is only necessary because a bunch of Republican Congress critters have signed an idiotic "No tax increases" pledge to a non-government lobbyist for the very rich.
Forcing Doctors to lie to their patients is poor governance and legislation. It is just as inappropriate as government forcing news media to always praise Republican nonsense and mythology as truth and reality.
Republican partisans rail against the label "fascists" being applied to them, but then behave as fascists would. I hope they feel better being labeled as idiots and liars.
Calling a tax a "penalty" supposedly feeds the GOP "personal responsibility" meme. Right. As if...
Bill,
There is no way that health care plan would have passed if the penalty for not buying insurance would have been called a tax, too many Democrats would have voted against it. That is why Democratic House and Senate leadership stated time and time again that it was not a tax. Personally have nothing against the plan itself, only the precedent it sets that the government can tax me to force me to do something I don't feel is in my best interest. Something had to be done and since my preferred way, universal health care will never happen here, let's give it a try. Worse thing that can happen is that the Treasury will start creating money to pay the debt, leading to run away inflation and a reduced standard of living for everyone for a generation or two. Best result is that which the President claims, that it will cure our ills.
John,
Now I understand that a lie to you is just a marketing ploy and I do shine my leather shoes everytime I wear them.
The lowest denominator is not always black and white. If you want to get picky about it, gettin all shined up is a bit deceitful. You're still the same old Joe.
You are right John, different strokes for different folks.
Tell you two stories(hope you won't get bored).
There is a leading citizen of this community who will go nameless since he/she still lives, do consider him to be both my intellectual and moral superior, watched me do something one day and when it was all done said that I was by far the evilest person he had ever known and the only evil person he had ever seen who always did evil for good.
The other was a Lake County Commisioner, who has passed, God rest her soul. She looked at me and said " you are one evil---but I sure am glad that you are my evil---)
Both were/are Progressive Democrats. I always look inside the person, never at the outside.
You have no idea who the "same old Joe" is.
You may be right, Joseph. It might well have been the Democrats and not the Republicans who were most concerned about calling it a tax. Oh, the tangled webs we weave...
If I'm remembering all of the posturing and manufactured town hall Tea Party shrieking during the last election....it seems that there was a concern about the government coming between a patient and their doctor.
Imagine how inane this state government mandated conversation is when a woman needs to choose between an abortion and her own life.
But that is just the first step...then they need to visit an uncertified abortion counselor and wait 72 hours thanks to another state government mandated interference between the doctor patient relationship.
Bill makes a good point with... " but the Republicans will never go along with another tax increase.â€
Which is funny considering that the most revered Republican of modern history, Ronald Reagan, was unafraid of not just using the word but also imposing taxes.
As a matter of fact, he wasn't just courageous enough to face facts about when taxes were needed, he was really good at it, both as the Governor of California and then again as President.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-forgotten-tax-record
But heck, that shouldn't stand in the way of renaming our coastal waters after such a good tax and spend politician.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/19/darrell_issa_wants_to_re_name_all_ocean_water_near_the_united_states_after_ronald_reagan.html
Heck, why stop there, beaches on the coasts could then be renamed to commemorate each one of his tax increases.
Was that too emotional Joseph?
Considering the financial bind that California is in bet a lot of them would like to see him back. Ronald Reagan couldn't get the Republican nomination now and I doubt that Bill Clinton could be nominated by the Democrats. Both are too moderate for todays political climate.
Give a little emotion, I wouldn't name a beach after Ronald Reagan I'd put him on Mount Rushmore. If America still exists I'd bet money that my great grandchildren will read in history books that the last great American Presidents were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, only mistake President Clinton made other than Monica was in gutting the Department of Defense causing Gulf War II to have to be fought by National Guardsmen. Jana, don't start with bad war, we haven't fought a Constitional war since WarII in the 1940's
Yeah. Don't be foolish. The Republicans made it clear they just wanted the White House back. Think Mitch McConnell. Maybe it's time for term limits if the old guard won't change. Their favorability rating is 18 percent. Has averaged only 34 percent since being tracked in 1974.
Forget Mt Rushmore. Put Reagan on the T Bill.
careful John, checked Wikipedia, don't like to use it as a source but it was the quickest, but according to them out of the top 20 currently serving members of the Senate 13 are Democrats. Only counted top 20 cause that was all my computer screen would show at one time and I didn't want to miscount. Somebody else can count all if they want to,
Name toxic waste dumps after Reagan..."Ronald Reagan Toxic Waste dump #1000", or whatever number toxicity ranking or state.
Some think that partisanship is a positive thing. There are now real, identifiable differences in the parties so you can pick your side. But they only think about tearing the party down who's in power, so maybe a third party is the answer for a saner process.
I don't know if we get away from that problem with a third party, John. Suppose we form a third party to challenge South Dakota's rotten abortion politics. An unavoidable part of our mission needs to be weakening the power of existing parties by winning votes and power in order to effect the changes we seek. An unavoidable part of our campaign will be to point out that letting the other parties run the show leads to legislatively mandated lies from doctors... which arguably constitutes tearing down the other party. Is there a difference?
Yeah, I think there is a difference. Both parties need to be brought down to size so they need the moderate, reasonable votes. As it is now moderates, or anyone willing to vote the other way are ostracized by their own party. Real authority could end up being in a third party.
Is it possible that our esteemed legislators simply need to learn about the fallacy of the "Law of Small Numbers?"
Or conversely, do they already know about it and are hoping we don't?
The answer to that question, Cory, could be the basis of your argument about forcing doctors to tell their patients what the legislators know to be a falsehood.
At a minimum, we all perhaps could benefit from being far better versed on this effect than we are.
http://www.greenbookblog.org/2012/05/11/how-myths-are-formed-the-law-of-small-numbers-market-research/
Noticed as a kid a high percentage of people would see something happen twice and then describe it as happening always. People get more logical as they get older though, but this partisanship is not about logic. It's just about power.
That kind of power creates conformity.
"ideology-driven liars"
Like those that call evolution scientific facts? Whose fault is it that science is not exact?
They don't want insurance to pay for birth control while demanding it pay for pedophilia.
http://mtcowgirl.com/2012/07/28/catholics-want-pedophilia-coverage-not-birth-control/
You cannot make up this stuff.
John, insurance companies are not being asked to pay for the costs related to the acts of pedophilia, but instead the legal consequences of such acts. The real contradiction is saying having sex with babies should be illegal, but killing them is OK...and because killing them is legal, then insurance companies must pay for the act of killing.
So just because an act is legal, insurance companies have to pay for them?
"Like those that call evolution scientific facts?"
Sibby, it's the exact opposite of that, actually. People have a very difficult time accepting that much of what occurs in nature is random and look for meaning even when there is no meaning to be had.
When we believe something we are also very eager to pull in information (without critical evaluation) that supports our position and turn a blind eye to what doesn't. Everyone I've ever known has been guilty of this. It screws up research etc, but it's also the reason we should expect the courts, as was needed in this case, to be impartial and insist laws be based on logic.
Well, that's a whole other can of worms, John. The standard for the courts is the Constitution. Wouldn't we first have to submit THAT to a logic test? ;^)
...John's comment gets me to thinking about how many people BELIEVE in the Constitution and "are also very eager to pull in information (without critical evaluation) that supports our position and turn a blind eye to what doesn’t."
I thought the standard for the courts was fairness.
John, yeah, wouldn't that be great?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.asp
Ok, that was the Constitutional Oath (link doesn't go). No law may contradict the Constitution, but they've got plenty of authority under that to throw out a law and tell them to base it on facts. The lower court did. Maybe this will keep moving up the ladder.
I agree with you John. It would be nice if our laws made sense. Hopefully we can keep working on it. Meanwhile as per Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Wow, gov't lying to women? This is news?
One would think that after Y2K, salt causes high blood pressure, silicon breast implants are dangerous, swine flu, bird flu, H1N, three genratisn of imbeciles are enough, separate but equal is fine, we're all gonna get AIDS, floridation, Corvairs are death traps, our landfills are full, building self-esteem is an end in itself, and on and on....
Golly, and NOW you're telling us that our gov't is lying to us?
Thanks.
Julie, you are confusing the talking points of right-wing radio and the John Birch Society with an actual policy of the South Dakota state government to spread misinformation based on demonstrably false research. Stay on topic.
ca:
Againb, if you wish to call me names or create more strawmen like "right wing radio", have at it. But it's a waste of time. Come on, you're smarter than that. If you want to develop an intelligent blog, it's tiome to stop the name-calling.
How gov't lies all the time. Comprendo? In this case, SD is spreading information about possible conenctions between abortion and mental health issues. There is SCIENCE to back it up. There is also science to refute it. Therefore, the legislature has made a determination that such information can and should be provided. There is NOTHING in the law that prohibits abortionists from providing additional information to the contrary.
Gosh, that's what open-minded people do--they share information.
Leave a Reply