• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Texas continues to pay for a proven "discredited" expert on anti-abortion law

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Texas Pays "Thoroughly Discredited" Expert $42,000 to Defend Anti-Abortion Law

Judges twice disregarded Vincent Rue's testimony in key abortion cases. Texas is paying him anyway.


Denying Texas women access to abortion is proving to be pricey. Texas has paid Vincent Rue, a Florida marriage therapist best known for his discredited theories about how abortion causes mental illness, more than $42,000 in less than six months to aid its legal defense of a new law that would close all but a handful of the state's abortion clinics.

The controversial legislation, which was the target of state Sen. Wendy Davis's 11-hour filibuster, places strict new regulations on abortion clinics with the aim of shutting them down. Its most onerous provision—which the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group, is challenging in court—gives abortion clinics until September 1 to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. A typical abortion does not require the features of an ambulatory surgical center, such as general anesthesia. Only six Texas clinics currently qualify as ambulatory surgical centers. The state's other 15 clinics would need upgrades to operating rooms and construction to widen hallways in order to meet the standard—a costly prospect that will ultimately force these clinics to close.

Judges in other states have thrown out less draconian laws. So to defend its abortion restrictions, Texas brought in Rue, who helped draft, edit, and find citations for the reports its experts witnesses submit to the court. But Rue, who holds a doctorate in family relations from the University of North Carolina School of Home Economics, is an odd choice for the job—"a long-discredited quack," in the view of one state representative from Wisconsin, where Rue performed similar defense work. Although Rue testified about the harms of abortion in two landmark abortion cases in the early 1990s, the judges in those cases dismissed his testimony as personally biased and lacking expertise. Rue has pushed the medical mainstream to recognize "post-abortive syndrome"—a mental illness that supposedly results from abortion—only to have organizations such as the National Center for Health Statistics pan his research. In 1981, he claimed in a report to the US Senate that "abortion re-escalates the battle between the sexes" and "abortion increases bitterness toward men."

"He has been really thoroughly discredited by trial courts," Priscilla Smith, who directs Yale Law School's reproductive justice studies program, told Mother Jones in June; Smith faced Rue many years ago as a litigator.

This hasn't stopped Rue from getting regular work as an expert on abortion, although he no longer testifies in court. In the past two years, Republican administrations in four states—Alabama, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin—have paid or promised to pay Rue $192,205.50 in exchange for help defending anti-abortion laws.

Abortion rights advocates bank on Rue's involvement in these cases to undermine the states' arguments. Last week, an Alabama judge who heard a challenge to one of the state's recent anti-abortion laws discounted the testimony of one of Rue's go-to experts; during cross-examination, the judge had been disturbed to learn about Rue's heavy influence on the expert's testimony. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood highlighted Rue's past in their ongoing challenge to a Wisconsin law requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers. And in Texas, according to accounts of the trial from the Houston Chronicle and Austin Chronicle, attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights made Rue's connection to the defense a key point in cross-examination of state witnesses last week.

One of these witnesses was Deborah Kitz, a health care consultant from Pennsylvania. Kitz testified that it was inexpensive to turn a typical health care facility into an ambulatory surgical center, but she admitted that she had never reviewed the standards for ambulatory surgical centers required by Texas.

Lee Yeakel, the federal judge who's handling the Texas case, allowed emails into evidence purporting to show how Rue influenced Kitz. "Tried to use as much of your material as I could, but time ran out," Kitz wrote to Rue in one email. In another email, Kitz referred to the document Rue was editing in quotations—"my" report. Kitz also pushed back against Rue for adding citations to her draft of sources she hadn't read. On Thursday, Kitz testified that the ideas in her report were her own.

The state also called Peter Uhlenberg, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, to testify that obtaining hospital admitting privileges was not as difficult as abortion providers made it out to be. Emails produced by the prosecution show that Rue gave Uhlenberg sources, "ideas," and "fact changes," according to the Austin Chronicle. "I need your critical suggestions," Uhlenberg wrote to Rue in one message. Uhlenberg testified that he did not seek input from Rue.

Another witness for the state was James C. Anderson, a Virginia emergency room doctor and the chair of Virginia Physicians for Life. Rue has tapped Anderson as an expert witness in Alabama, Alaska, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. These states have paid Anderson more than $110,000.

Anderson testified that Rue had provided sources for his testimony and "wordsmithing." Anderson made a similar admission to an Alabama court in May, in the course of defending a law that would have closed three of state's five clinics. In that case, Rue's involvement may have caused the judge in that case to discredit Anderson's testimony. When Anderson admitted that he wasn't aware two courts had tossed Rue's testimony, and the judge grew incredulous. "You say you don't know his employment or any organizations that he belongs to," the judge said to Anderson. "Why do you trust him?" Last week, in his opinion striking down the anti-abortion law, the judge said he had ignored Anderson's testimony "due to concerns about his judgment or honesty."

Anderson, Kitz, and Rue did not reply to calls and emails seeking comment. Uhlenberg declined to comment until the end of the trial.

Rue's work with several states is ongoing. In the nine weeks since Mother Jones first reported on Rue's involvement with these lawsuits, Alabama, Texas, and Wisconsin have paid him an additional $25,417.50. North Dakota may soon offer another opportunity for a paycheck: The state has appealed a decision striking down a six-week abortion ban, which Rue helped defend, and the Legislature has provided the attorney general with $400,000 to fight for the law. A spokeswoman for North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem wouldn't say whether he would hire Rue to work on the appeal.

--------------------------------------

Quoted from the facebook comments:

This is Dominionism in action. Christofascist Teahadists try to hijack the rule of law to impose evangelical backwardness on the general population. Using Vincent Rue as an expert witness is also a fraud perpetrated on the taxpayers of Alabama, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

There is a lot of money to be made for these type discredited charlatans in the republican party. All they have to do is promote an irrational and illogical view of factual reality. The RWNJs never learn, they just double down on their lunacy!!! Living in the 21st century seems to be too difficult for them to adjust to and accept. Perhaps, they believe Rove's view......they can actually change reality with deception, lies and insane spin!!!

....and I concur..
 
Facts are like Ebola to the GOP, facts are dangerous and should be avoided at all costs and they don't want that shit anywhere near them!
 
Texas Pays "Thoroughly Discredited" Expert $42,000 to Defend Anti-Abortion Law

A law that protects womens health is anti-abortion, amazing.

legal defense of a new law that would close all but a handful of the state's abortion clinics.

I see no problem closing so called "clinics" that murder children.

That is like Germans saying they are outraged that a jewish camp is being closed.

We should all be happy that crimes against humanity are coming to an end.

Hooray, jewish extermination camps were closed.

Hooray, children extermination buildings are being closed.



"Lying for Jesus," is the conservative way.

Funny how you are always the first one to bring religion into the debate.

Maybe you are a closet Christian?
 
Last edited:
Extremists have been willing and advocating the murder of medical doctors performing perfectly legal procedures,.. why wouldn't they use lies as well?
 
Extremists have been willing and advocating the murder of medical doctors performing perfectly legal procedures,.. why wouldn't they use lies as well?

Let me ask you something, when the allies liberated the jewish extermination camps, put the nazis on trial, and then hung the nazis from the end of a rope, were the allies "extremist?"

How does protecting human rights make one an extremist?
 
Last edited:
Let me ask you something, when the allies liberated the jewish extermination camps, put the nazis on trial, and then hung the nazis from the end of a rope, were the allies "extremist?"

How does protecting human rights make one an extremist?

You forgot to point out that all of the Nazi actions were completely legal under the laws of Germany at the time. Therefore by liberal logic they are completely unquestionable.
 
Let me ask you something, when the allies liberated the jewish extermination camps, put the nazis on trial, and then hung the nazis from the end of a rope, were the allies "extremist?"

How does protecting human rights make one an extremist?

Your example relates to justice.

Abortion, or the prevention of it, is not justice. It is a private and personal matter. Our laws even back that.

Mind your own business and stop forcing your extremist views on personal matters.

Oh, and back to your example - what the Nazis did was not a personal matter,.. it was mass extermination and needed to be stopped and vindicated.
 
I see no problem closing so called "clinics" that murder children.

Where has there ever been any clinic that murdered any child?

I always cringe when a person tries to call an embryo or a zygote, "a child".

It makes me wonder what date they use for their birthday...
The day they were BORN or the day they were CONCEIVED?

4148592761_this_is_not_a_person_answer_2_xlarge.jpg
 
Your example relates to justice.

Abortion, or the prevention of it, is not justice. It is a private and personal matter. Our laws even back that.

Mind your own business and stop forcing your extremist views on personal matters.

Oh, and back to your example - what the Nazis did was not a personal matter,.. it was mass extermination and needed to be stopped and vindicated.

And it was a completely legal mass extermination.

Are you suggesting that laws are not always right?:hmm:
 
Where has there ever been any clinic that murdered any child?

I always cringe when a person tries to call an embryo or a zygote, "a child".


4148592761_this_is_not_a_person_answer_2_xlarge.jpg

Your analogy sucks.

For example. No one would call this a cake

betty-crocker-yellow-cake-mix-0410-s3-medium_new.jpg


And I assume everyone would agree this is a cake

Red-Velvet-Cheesecake-Cake.jpg


But what would you call this:
pour-cinnamon-roll-cake-batter.jpg





It makes me wonder what date they use for their birthday...
The day they were BORN or the day they were CONCEIVED?

Are you slow?^_^

Now perhaps you would want to celebrate your conceptionday. But personally that is NOT a conversation I would want to be having with my parents 😛
 
Abortion, or the prevention of it, is not justice. It is a private and personal matter. Our laws even back that.

Crimes against humanity can not hide behind the shield of law.



Where has there ever been any clinic that murdered any child?

I always cringe when a person tries to call an embryo or a zygote, "a child".

It is a simple concept, that we are all created equal and as such are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Society can not set a standard by which rights are granted.

If you are white you are entitled to equal rights.

If you own property, you are entitled to equal rights.

If you are born, you are entitled to equal rights.

Rights are granted at the time of creation.
 
Abortion is legal.

The holocaust was legal.

You keep bringing up abortion being legal as if that in and of itself is an argument for it being right.

It should be obvious why that doesn't make sense.

It is a legal, personal matter. What a woman does with her body is none of your business. And, you are not allowed to make it part of your business.

Comparing that, to a directive and order, for all citizens of a country is just alarmist and sensationalist.

No one is ordering women to have abortions. They are allowed to make that choice.

Lumping the holocaust (an order and directive for a country to do something) into abortion (a choice, regarding what a person does with their body) is incorrect.

You are wrong. Nothing more to it.
 
Crimes against humanity can not hide behind the shield of law.

And,... copy and paste,..

It is a legal, personal matter. What a woman does with her body is none of your business. And, you are not allowed to make it part of your business.

Comparing that, to a directive and order, for all citizens of a country is just alarmist and sensationalist.

No one is ordering women to have abortions. They are allowed to make that choice.

Lumping the holocaust (an order and directive for a country to do something) into abortion (a choice, regarding what a person does with their body) is incorrect.

You are wrong. Nothing more to it.
 
It is a legal, personal matter. What a woman does with her body is none of your business. And, you are not allowed to make it part of your business.

Comparing that, to a directive and order, for all citizens of a country is just alarmist and sensationalist.

Equal protection under the law.

That an unborn child receives as much protection as an eagle egg.
 
It is a legal, personal matter. What a woman does with her body is none of your business. And, you are not allowed to make it part of your business.

The government makes what people do with their body its business on numerous occasions.

See prostitution laws

See drug laws

See laws against selling organs

See the draft

Why is it okay for the government to force men to charge at machine guns and artillery, but not acceptable for the government to force a woman to carry a fetus around for 9 months?
 
Are you slow?^_^

Now perhaps you would want to celebrate your conceptionday. But personally that is NOT a conversation I would want to be having with my parents 😛

Your date of birth is what is used to determine how long you have been alive.

Ergo, a person who believes that a stem cell or a zygote is a person, then they should be using their date of conception as the date that they became alive.
 
Back
Top