Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Greg Abbott’s office reveals $40K contract with abortion opponent
The Texas attorney general’s office paid Vincent Rue, a prominent abortion opponent, $500 an hour to coordinate expert witnesses as the state prepared to defend the House Bill 2 abortion law in court, according to a contract that the agency had sought to keep confidential.
The American-Statesman had requested a copy of Rue’s litigation-consultant contract in early August, when the Florida psychotherapist’s work for Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office became a major point of contention during a five-day federal court trial over HB 2.
Read more: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/greg-abbotts-office-reveals-contract-with-abortion/nhxRT/ (subscription required)
[font color=green]There is an interesting comment below the article:[/font]
When a government agency is ashamed of its conduct, and looks to bury the news, it is always released on a Friday, for publication in the week's least-read papers on Saturday, and for broadcast on the least-viewed news programs on Friday night. In this case, hater Gregory Wayne Abbott is also benefited by his wrongdoing by essentially releasing the information after early voting is completed.
The Rue scandal is more proof that our attorney general is an unethical shyster who hates women and believes his desire to get elected governor trumps the constitutional right to early termination of a pregnancy, rights the U.S. Supreme Court set forth clearly in Roe v. Wade, a Texas case striking down punitive Texas abortion statutes similar to HB 2.
Over the past two years, at least four Republican-controlled states have paid nearly $200,000 in taxpayers funds to Vincent Rue — a marriage therapist whose testimony has been repeatedly disregarded by judges — to help defend unconstitutional and ultra-strict abortion laws in court.
Rue has nonsensically claimed that "abortion reescalates the battle between the sexes" and "abortion increases bitterness toward men." For decades, he has strived to convince mainstream researchers to recognize "post-abortion syndrome," a supposed mental illness resulting from abortion.
But after submission for peer review by scientists with the Center for Disease Control, the National Center for Health Statistics and other scientific institutions, Rue's study was found to have "no value" and to be "based upon a priori beliefs rather than an objective review of the evidence," according to Daniel Huyett, a federal judge who disregarded Rue's testimony in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a landmark 1990 abortion case that wound up before the Supreme Court.
"His testimony is devoid of…analytical force and scientific rigor," Huyett added. "Moreover, his admitted personal opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, suggests a possible personal bias." Rue "possesses neither the academic qualifications nor the professional experience of plaintiffs' expert witnesses," another federal judge wrote in 1986 after hearing Rue's testimony in another landmark abortion case, Hodgson v. Minnesota.
"Rue has been really thoroughly discredited by trial courts," says Priscilla Smith, who faced Rue many years ago as a litigator and now directs the Yale Law School's reproductive justice studies program.
It is because Rue doesn't qualify as an expert witness that Abbott has deceptively kept him off the stand, yet Abbott improperly, against legal ethical rules, and unlawfully has used Rue to draft testimony that is presented as having been drafted by other so-called experts used by Abbott. Abbott could face tough repercussions, fines, and the striking of much of the state's case if the plaintiffs choose to pursue sanctions against our fraud of an attorney general.
The Rue scandal is more proof that our attorney general is an unethical shyster who hates women and believes his desire to get elected governor trumps the constitutional right to early termination of a pregnancy, rights the U.S. Supreme Court set forth clearly in Roe v. Wade, a Texas case striking down punitive Texas abortion statutes similar to HB 2.
Over the past two years, at least four Republican-controlled states have paid nearly $200,000 in taxpayers funds to Vincent Rue — a marriage therapist whose testimony has been repeatedly disregarded by judges — to help defend unconstitutional and ultra-strict abortion laws in court.
Rue has nonsensically claimed that "abortion reescalates the battle between the sexes" and "abortion increases bitterness toward men." For decades, he has strived to convince mainstream researchers to recognize "post-abortion syndrome," a supposed mental illness resulting from abortion.
But after submission for peer review by scientists with the Center for Disease Control, the National Center for Health Statistics and other scientific institutions, Rue's study was found to have "no value" and to be "based upon a priori beliefs rather than an objective review of the evidence," according to Daniel Huyett, a federal judge who disregarded Rue's testimony in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a landmark 1990 abortion case that wound up before the Supreme Court.
"His testimony is devoid of…analytical force and scientific rigor," Huyett added. "Moreover, his admitted personal opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, suggests a possible personal bias." Rue "possesses neither the academic qualifications nor the professional experience of plaintiffs' expert witnesses," another federal judge wrote in 1986 after hearing Rue's testimony in another landmark abortion case, Hodgson v. Minnesota.
"Rue has been really thoroughly discredited by trial courts," says Priscilla Smith, who faced Rue many years ago as a litigator and now directs the Yale Law School's reproductive justice studies program.
It is because Rue doesn't qualify as an expert witness that Abbott has deceptively kept him off the stand, yet Abbott improperly, against legal ethical rules, and unlawfully has used Rue to draft testimony that is presented as having been drafted by other so-called experts used by Abbott. Abbott could face tough repercussions, fines, and the striking of much of the state's case if the plaintiffs choose to pursue sanctions against our fraud of an attorney general.