Connect with us

Bombshell Letter: 200+ PhDs And MDs Question Scholarly Merit Of Regnerus Study

Published

on

Mark Regnerus’ so-called  study of children of gay parents has  failed the rigorous  standards demanded by  academic peer review and his work is now under heightened scrutiny at the University of Texas and by the broader academic community   

Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin carried out a methodologically-challenged gay parenting study so blatantly in line with the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage‘s goals of smearing gay people for political purposes, that many have considered Regnerus’s work far closer to election year political propaganda than to science. Indeed, Regnerus received a $35,000 “planning grant” from the Witherspoon Institute, where NOM’s Robert George is a Senior Fellow. The appearance is that if George-Witherspoon had not approved the disingenuous, anti-gay study design, Regnerus would not have received any further funding from them. Regnerus has admitted that had he sought funding for a gay parenting study from the National Institutes of Health, their study protocol would have worked in the long-term best interest of science.

Regnerus’s activity is now the subject of a Scientific Misconduct inquiry at the University of Texas, Austin.

Scores of Ph.D.s and M.D.s and professionals in sociology, psychiatry and other relevant fields have sent a letter to James Wright, editor of “Social Science Research,” the journal where Regnerus’s study was published with a companion piece by the known anti-gay bigot Loren Marks.  In an e-mail, Gary J. Gates, Ph.D., Wiliams Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, told me this about the letter:

As a scholar who studies the LGBT population, I see my role as a squeaky wheel in the academic grease.  Whatever assertions may be made about Dr. Rengerus’ ideological leanings or the leanings of his funders, it doesn’t change the fact that a credible academic journal with no obvious ideological bias published his paper. I find this astonishing. The evidence is pointing to an inappropriately accelerated and potentially  biased review process that calls the integrity of the journal and its editorial processes into serious question. The editorial advisors of Social Science Research include many notable and credible scholars. I am hopeful that they will eventually be compelled to intervene. If it can be clearly shown that the review process was biased and inadequate, the paper should be retracted until such time that it undergoes a more rigorous review.”

The letter follows in its entirety:

Letter to the editors and advisory editors of Social Science Research

As researchers and scholars, many of whom with extensive experience in quantitative and qualitative research in family structures and child outcomes, we write to raise serious concerns about the most recent issue of Social Science Research and the set of papers focused on parenting by lesbians and gay men. In this regard, we have particular concern about Mark Regnerus’ paper entitled “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.”

LGBT parenting is a highly politicized topic. While the presence of a vibrant and controversial public debate should in no way censor scholarship, it should compel the academy to hold scholarship around that topic to our most rigorous standards. We are very concerned that these standards were not upheld in this issue or with this paper, given the apparently expedited process of publication and the decision to publish commentaries on the paper by scholars who were directly involved with the study and have limited experience in LGBT parenting research. We also have serious concerns about the scholarly merit of this paper.

In this letter, we detail the specific concerns that lead us to request that you publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

We question the process by which this paper was submitted, reviewed, and accepted for publication. The paper was received by the journal on February 1, 2012. A revision was received on February 29, and the paper was accepted on March 12. This suggests that the peer review process and substantive revisions occurred within a period of just five weeks. According to the peer review policy of the Social Science Research website hosted by Elsevier, the first step of the review process is an initial manuscript evaluation by the editor. Once deemed to meet minimum criteria, at least 2 experts are secured for a peer review. The website states that, “Typically manuscripts are reviewed within 2-3 months of submission but substantially longer review times are not uncommon” and that “Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the initial referees upon receipt.” Clearly, Dr. Regnerus’ paper was returned to him very quickly, because he had time to revise the manuscript and get it back to the journal by February 29th. Further, it appears that a second substantive peer review may not have occurred as the paper was accepted just two weeks after the revision was submitted.

The five-week submission to acceptance length was much shorter than all of the other articles published in the July 2012 issue. The average period of review for papers published in this issue was more than a year and the median review time was more than ten months. As we note below, there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.

We further question the selection of commenters for the Regnerus paper. While Cynthia Osborne and Paul Amato are certainly well-respected scholars, they are also both active participants in the Regnerus study. According to her curriculum vitae, Dr. Osborne is a Co-Principal Investigator of the New Family Structure Survey. Dr. Amato served as a paid consultant on the advisory group convened to provide insights into study design and methods. Perhaps more importantly, neither Osborne nor Amato have ever published work that considers LGBT family or parenting issues. A cursory examination of this body of literature would reveal a wide range of scholars who are much more qualified to evaluate the merits of this study and were neither directly involved in the study design nor compensated for that involvement.

We have substantial concerns about the merits of this paper and question whether it actually uses methods and instruments that answer the research questions posed in the paper. The author claims that the purpose of the analysis is to begin to address the question, “Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?” (p. 755). He creates several categories of “family type”, including “lesbian mother” and “gay father” as well as “divorced late,” “stepfamily,” and “single-parent.” But, as the author notes, for those respondents who indicated that a parent had a “same-sex relationship,” these categories were collapsed to boost sample size:

That is, a small minority of respondents might fit more than one group. I have, however, forced their mutual exclusivity here for analytic purposes. For example, a respondent whose mother had a same-sex relationship might also qualify in Group 5 or Group 7, but in this case my analytical interest is in maximizing the sample size of Groups 2 and 3 so the respondent would be placed in Group 2 (LMs). Since Group 3 (GFs) is the smallest and most difficult to locate randomly in the population, its composition trumped that of others, even LMs. (There were 12 cases of respondents who reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father).

By doing this, the author is unable to distinguish between the impact of having a parent who has had a continuous same-sex relationship from the impact of having same-sex parents who broke-up from the impact of living in a same-sex stepfamily from the impact of living with a single parent who may have dated a same-sex partner; each of these groups are included in a single “lesbian mother” or “gay father” group depending on the gender of the parent who had a same-sex relationship. Specifically, this paper fails to distinguish family structure and family instability. Thus, it fails to distinguish, for children whose parents ever had a same-sex relationship experience, the associations due to family structure from the associations due to family stability. However, he does attempt to distinguish family structure from family instability for the children of different-sex parents by identifying children who lived in an intact biological family. To make a group equivalent to the group he labels as having “lesbian” or “gay” parents, the author should have grouped all other respondents together and included those who lived in an intact biological family with those who ever experienced divorce, or whose parents ever had a different-sex romantic relationship. That seems absurd to family structure researchers, yet that type of grouping is exactly what he did with his “lesbian mother” and “gay father” groups.

It should be noted that the analyses also fail to distinguish family structure from family stability for single mothers; this group included both continuously single mothers and those single mothers who had previously experienced a divorce.
The paper employs an unusual method to measure the sexual orientation of the respondents’ parents. Even if the analyses had distinguished family stability from family structure, this paper and its accompanying study could not actually directly examine the impact of having a gay or lesbian parent on child outcomes because the interpretation of the measurement of parental sexual orientation is unclear. The author acknowledges as much when he states:

It is, however, very possible that the same-sex romantic relationships about which the respondents report were not framed by those respondents as indicating their own (or their parent’s own) understanding of their parent as gay or lesbian or bisexual in sexual orientation. Indeed, this is more a study of the children of parents who have had (and in some cases, are still in) same-sex relationships than it is one of children whose parents have self-identified or are ‘‘out’’ as gay or lesbian or bisexual.

Respondents were asked whether their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship. The author then identifies mothers and fathers as “lesbian” or “gay” without any substantiation of parental sexual orientation either by respondents or their parents. Given the author’s stated caveats, it is both inappropriate and factually incorrect for him to refer to these parents as “gay” or “lesbian” throughout the paper.

We are very concerned about the academic integrity of the peer review process for this paper as well as its intellectual merit. We question the decision of Social Science Research to publish the paper, and particularly, to
publish it without an extensive, rigorous peer review process and commentary from scholars with explicit expertise on LGBT family research. The methodologies used in this paper and the interpretation of the findings are inappropriate. The publication of this paper and the accompanying commentary calls the editorial process at Social Science Research, a well-regarded, highly cited social science journal (ranking in the top 15% of Sociology journals by ISI), into serious question. We urge you to publicly disclose the reasons for both the expedited peer review process of this clearly controversial paper and the choice of commentators invited to submit critiques. We further request that you invite scholars with specific expertise in LGBT parenting issues to submit a detailed critique of the paper and accompanying commentaries for publication in the next issue of the journal.

Sociologists and Family Studies Scholars
Silke Aisenbrey, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, Yeshiva University
Katherine R. Allen, PhD
Professor of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Eric Anderson, PhD
Professor of Sports Medicine, University of Winchester
Nielan Barnes, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, California State University, Long Beach
Amanda K. Baumle, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Houston
Debbie Becher
Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Barnard College, Columbia University
Mary Bernstein, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Connecticut
Natalie Boero, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, San Jose State University
H.M.W Bos, PhD
Assitant Professor of Sociology, University of Amsterdam
Lisa D Brush, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh
Neal Caren
Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Mary Ann Clawson, PhD
Professor of Sociology, Wesleyan University
Dan Clawson, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Philip Cohen, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Maryland
D’Lane Compton, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of New Orleans
Shelley J. Correll, PhD
Professor of Sociology, Stanford University
David H. Demo, PhD
Professor of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Catherine Donovan PhD
Professor of Social Relations, University of Sunderland
Sinikka Elliott, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, North Carolina State University
Louis Edgar Esparza, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, California State University, Los Angeles
Laurie Essig, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies, Middlebury College
Myra Marx Ferree, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tina Fetner, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, McMaster University
Jessica Fields, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology and Sexuality Studies, San Francisco State University
Melissa M. Forbis, PhD
Assistant Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies and Sociology, SUNY Stonybrook

Gary J. Gates, PhD
Williams Distinguished Scholar, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law
Naomi Gerstel, Phd
Distinguished Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts
Katherine Giuffre, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, Colorado College
Gloria González-López, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
Theodore Greenstein, PhD
Professor and Director of Graduate Programs for Sociology, North Carolina State University
Jessica Halliday Hardie
NICHD Postdoctoral Fellow, Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University
Mark D. Hayward
Professor of Sociology and Director, Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin
Melanie Heath, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, McMaster University
Amie Hess
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Meredith College
Melanie M. Hughes, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh
Shamus Rahman Khan, PhD
Professor of Sociology, Columbia University
Michael Kimmel, PhD
Professor of Sociology, SUNY
Sherryl Klienman, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina
Charles Q. Lau, PhD
Survey Research Division, RTI international
Jennifer Lee, PhD
Professor, Department of Sociology, University of California – Irvine
Jean Lynch, PhD
Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology and Gerontology, Miami University
Gill McCann, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont
Tey Meadow, PhD
Cotsen Fellow, Princeton University
Sarah O. Meadows, PhD
Social Scientist, RAND Corporation
Eleanor M. Miller, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont
Debra Minkoff, PhD
Professor of Sociology, Barnard College, Columbia University
Beth Mintz, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont
Dawne Moon, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Marquette University
Mignon R. Moore, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles and Chair, Race, Gender & Class Section of the American Sociological Association
Chandra Muller
Professor of Sociology and Faculty Research Associate, Population Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin
Nancy A. Naples, PhD
Professor of Sociology and Women’s Studies, University of Connecticut
Peter M. Nardi, PhD
Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Pitzer College, The Claremont Colleges
Alondra Nelson, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Columbia University
Jodi O’Brien, PhD
Professor and Chair of Sociology, Seattle University
Katherine O’Donnell, PhD
Senior Lecturer, School of Social Justice, University College Dublin
Ramona Faith Oswald, PhD
Professor of Family Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Joseph M. Palacios, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, Georgetown University

C.J. Pascoe, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Colorado College
Dudley L. Poston, Jr., PhD
Professor of Sociology, Texas A&M University
Nicole C. Raeburn, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of San Francisco
Kimberly Richman, PhD
Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of San Francisco
Barbara J. Risman, PhD
Professor and Head of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago
Sharmila Rudrappa, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
Stephen T. Russel, PhD
Professor of Family Studies and Human Development, University of Arizona
Virginia Rutter, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, Framingham State University
Natalia Sarkisian
Associate Professor of Sociology, Boston College
Saskia Sassen, PhD
Professor of Sociology, Columbia University
Liana C. Sayer
Associate Professor of Sociology, Ohio State University
Michael Schwalbe
Professor, Department of Sociology, North Carolina State University
Michael Schwartz, PhD
Chair and Professor of Sociology, Stony Brook University
Christine R. Schwartz, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Pepper Schwartz, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Washington
Denise Benoit Scott, PhD
Professor of Sociology, State University of New York at Geneseo
Richard Sennett, PhD
Professor of Sociology, New York University
Eve Shapiro, PhD
Professor of Sociology, Westfield State University
Eran Shor, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, McGill University
Wendy Simonds
Professor of Sociology, Georgia State University
sarah sobieraj
Associate Professor of Sociology, Tufts University
Judith Stacey, PhD
Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
Arlene Stein, PhD
Department of Sociology, Rutgers University
Verta Taylor, PhD
Chair and Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
Debra J Umberson, PhD
Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
Suzanna Danuta Walters, PhD
Professor of Sociology, Northeastern University
Jacqueline S. Weinstock, PhD
Associate Professor of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Vermont
Amy C. Wilkins, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado
Cai Wilkinson, FHEA, PhD
Lecturer in International Relations, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University
Kristi Williams, PhD
Associate Professor of Sociology, Ohio State University
Kerry Woodward, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology, California State University, Long Beach
Psychologists
Nancy Lynn Baker, PhD, ABPP
Diplomate in Forensic Psychology, Director, Forensic Concentration, Fielding Graduate University and Past President of the Society for the Psychology of Women
Meg Barker, PhD
Senior Lecturer in Psychology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Joel Becker, PhD
Prof., Dept. of Psychology,UCLA and Assoc. Clinical Prof., UCLA, Medical School
Steven Botticelli, PhD
Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychology, NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
Petra M Boynton, PhD
Social Psychologist, Lecturer in International Primary Health Research,UCL Medical School, University College London
Mark Brennan-Ing, PhD
Senior Research Scientist, AIDS Community Research Initiative of America
Alice S. Carter, PhD
Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts – Boston
Carol A. Carver, PhD
Licensed Psychologist and Past President of the Oregon Psychological Association
Armand R. Cerbone, PhD, ABPP
Board Certified Psychologist
Kirstyn Y.S. Chun, PsyD
Tenured Faculty, Counseling and Psychological Services, California State University, Long Beach
Victoria Clarke, PhD
Associate Professor in Sexuality Studies, Department of Psychology, University of the West of England, UK
Gilbert W. Cole, PhD
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Study Center Guest Lecturer, Union Theological Seminary
M. Lynne Cooper, PhD
Associate Editor, American Psychologist and Curators’ Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychological Science, University of Missouri – Columbia
Howard H. Covitz, PhD, ABPP
Board Certified Psychologist
Dennis Debiak, PsyD
Adjust Associate Professor, Institute for Graduate Clinical Psychology, Widener University and Secretary, Division of Psychoanalysis, American Psychological Association
Rachel H. Farr, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Psychology,University of Massachusetts Amherst
Herb Gingold, PhD
Co-Founder, Noir Institute
Abbie E. Goldberg, PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology, Clark University
Carla Golden, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Ithaca College
Robert-Jay Green, PhD
Executive Director, ROCKWAY INSTITUTE for LGBT Psychology & Public Policy Distinguished Professor, California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP) at Alliant International University
Beverly Greene, PhD, ABPP
Professor of Psychology, St. John’s University
Harold D. Grotevant, PhD
Rudd Family Foundation Chair in Psychology, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Sarah A. Hayes-Skelton, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Massachussets Boston
Stacy S. Horn, PhD
Associate Professor of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Univeristy of Illinois at Chicago
Sharon G. Horne, PhD
Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology, Department of Counseling and School Psychology, The University of Massachusetts Boston
Harm J. Hospers
Endowed chair Health Psychology and Homosexuality, Dean University College Maastricht, Dean Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Steven E. James, PhD
Chair of Psychology & Clinical Mental Health Counseling Programs, Goddard College
Darren Langdridge, PhD
Head of Department of Psychology, The Open University, UK
Chet Lesniak, PhD
Core Faculty, Counseling Specialization, School of Psychology, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Walden University
Heidi Levitt, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston
William D. Lubart, PhD
Faculty and Supervisor of Psychotherapy, The William Alanson White Institute
Carien Lubbe-De Beer, PhD
Senior Lecturer, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Pretoria
Tasim Martin-Berg, CPsychol
Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University
James P. Maurino, MSW, PhD
Assistant Professor, Human Development and Community and Human Services, SUNY-Empire State College
Ximena E. Mejia, PhD, LMHC
Director, Counseling Services, Parton Health and Counseling Center, Middlebury College
Roger Mills-Koonce, PhD
Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lin S. Myers, PhD
Professor of Psychology, California State University – Stanislaus
Jo Oppenheimer, MA
The Counseling Center for Women, Israel
Susan M. Orsillo, PhD
Professor, Department of Psychology, Suffolk University
David Pantalone, PhD
Assistant Professor of Psychology, Suffolk University
Jeffrey T. Parsons, Ph.D
Professor of Psychology and Public Health, Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
Maureen Perry-Jenkins, PhD
Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts – Amherst
Madelyn Petrow-Cohen, LCSW
psychotherapist in private practice in NYC & Maplewood, NJ
Todd R. Poch, PSYD, MALD, BCFM
Assistant Professor in Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology
Scott D. Pytluk, PhD
Professor, Illinois School of Professional Psychology, Argosy University, Chicago
Damien W. Riggs
Editor, Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, Senior Lecturer in Social and Policy Studies, Flinders University, Australia
Lizabeth Roemer, PhD
Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts – Boston
Ritch C. Savin-Williams
Professor, Developmental Psychology and Director, Sex and Gender Lab, Cornell University
J. Greg Serpa, PhD
Clinical Psychologist, Department of Veterans Affairs and Assistant Clinical Professor, UCLA Department of Psychology
Louise Bordeaux Silverstein, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Yeshiva University
Bonnie R. Strickland, PhD, ABPP
Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts
Karen Suyemoto, PhD
Associate Professor, Psychology and Asian American Studies, University of Massachusetts – Boston
Lance P. Swenson, PhD
Assistant Professor, Psychology Department, Suffolk University
Fiona Tasker, PhD
Department of Psychological Sciences, Birbeck University of London
Marcus C. Tye, Ph.D
Professor of Psychology, Dowling College
Richard G. Wight, PhD
Associate Researcher, UCLA School of Public Health

Other Scholars
Paula Amato, MD
Associate Professor, Oregon Health and Science University and Board Member, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Ellen Ann Andersen, PhD
Associate Professor of Political Science and Women’s and Gender Studies University of Vermont
Mary Barber, MD
Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health
Judith Bradford, PhD
Co-Chair, The Fenway Institute and Director, Center for Population Research in LGBT Health
Robert P Cabaj, MD
Associate Clinical Professor in Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco
Ryan M. Combs, PhD
Research Associate, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
Christopher Conti, MD
Assistant Clinical Professor, New York University Medical Center
Russel W. Dalton, EdD
Associate Professor of Religious Education, Brite Divinity School Texas Christian University
John D’Emilio, PhD
Professor of History, Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago
Anne Douglass, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education and Human Development, University of Massachusetts – Boston
Jack Drescher, MD
Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, New York Medical College
Oliva M. Espin, PhD
Professor Emerita, Department of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University
Nanette Gartrell, MD
Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law
Patti Geier, LCSW
Therapist
Alan Gilbert
John Evans Professor, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.
Ann P. Haas, PhD
Senior Project Specialist, American Founcation for Suicide Prevention and Professor (ret.) Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, CUNY
Ellen Haller, PhD
Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco
Nicole Heilbron, PhD
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine
Tonda Hughes, PhD, RN, FAAN
Professor and Head of Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago
Daniel Hurewitz, PhD
Assistant Professor, History Department, Hunter College, CUNY
Jesse Joad, MD, MS
Professor Emerita, Pediatrics, University of California – Davis and Vice President for Education, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
Debra Kaysen, Ph.D
Associate Professor of Psychiatry, University of Washington
Sang Hea Kil, PhD
Assistant Professor of Justice Studies, San Jose State University
Martha Kirkpatrick, MD
Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, UCLA

Holning Lau, JD
Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Arlene Istar Lev, LCSW
School of Social Welfare, SUNY Albany
Lisa W. Loutzenheiser, PhD
Associate Professor of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of British Columbia
Michael F. Lovenheim, PhD
Assistant Professor of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University
Catherine A. Lugg, PhD
Professor of Education, Rutgers University
Gerald P. Mallon, DSW
Julia Lathrop Professor of Child Welfare, Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College
Laura Mamo, PhD
Associate Professor of Health Education, San Francisco State University
Sean G. Massey
Associate Professor, Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies Program Binghamton University
Kenneth J. Meier, PhD
Charles H. Gregory Chair in Liberal Arts, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University
Stephen O. Murray
El Instituto Obregón, San Francisco, CA
Douglas NeJaime, PhD
Associate Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Henry Ng, MD, MPH, FAAP, FACP
Assistant Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Center for Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, MetroHealth Medical Center
Julie Novkov, PhD
Chair, Department of Political Science, Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies,University at Albany, SUNY
Loren A. Olson, MD
Des Moines, IA
Donald L. Opitz, PhD
Assistant Professor, School for New Learning at DePaul University
Katherine Parkin, PhD
Associate Professor of History, Monmouth University
Jessica Peet, PhD
School of International Relations, University of Southern California
Victoria Pollock
Adjunct Faculty at the Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto.
Jesus Ramirez-Valles PhD, MPH
Professor of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago
Nancy J. Ramsay, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Theology and Pastoral Care, Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University
Paul J. Rinaldi, PhD
Clinical Director, The Addiction Institute of New York, Department of Psychiatry, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center
Barbara Rothberg, DSW, LCSW
Therapist
Esther Rothblum, PhD
Professor of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University
Ralph Roughton, MD
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Emory University
Leila J. Rupp, PhD
Professor of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
Shawn Schulenberg, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Marshall University
Ken Sherrill, PhD
Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Hunter College, CUNY
Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH
Associate Professor,Departments of Psychiatry, Community & Preventive Medicine, and Family Medicine, University of Rochester
Stephen V. Sprinkle, PhD
Director of Field Education and Supervised Ministry, and Professor of Practical Theology Brite Divinity School

William J. Spurlin, PhD, FHEA
Professor of English, Brunel University London
Carole S. Vance, PhD, MPH
Assoc. Clinical Professor, Mailman School of Public Health,Columbia University
Angelia R. Wilson, PhD
Politics Discipline, University of Manchester, UK

 

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

Published

on

Standing behind a sign that says “Freedom Month,” Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on Tuesday blasted efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in the Sunshine State to make recreational use of marijuana legal. DeSantis also denounced efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would make abortion legal in his state.

“Look what’s happened in Denver, Colorado. Look what’s happened in Los Angeles, New York City. You know, I’ve talked to people that have moved from New York and they’re like, they used to have, you know, an apartment somewhere and it used to (smell differently). Now, what does it reek of? It reeks of marijuana. I don’t want the state to be reeking of marijuana,” DeSantis said (video below), as Florida Politics reported.

The Florida governor’s remarks come on the same day the Biden Administration announced plans to decrease the classification level of marijuana, which is currently listed in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines, and LSD. The proposed reclassification, which NBC News reports is expected to be approved, would move marijuana to the same category as Tylenol, codeine, and steroids.

In 2022 and 2023, President Joe Biden pardoned thousands of people serving time in prison for simple pot possession.

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

DeSantis’ remarks also come just days after he met with Donald Trump in a private meeting designed to “bury the hatchet,” and help the ex-president’s re-election efforts. The Florida governor ran in the Republican presidential primary against Trump, and both unleashed strong attacks. DeSantis, who is term-limited and cannot run again for governor in 2026, is expected to help Trump with fundraising and help him try to win the state of Florida.

“DeSantis kisses the ring in Miami meeting with Trump and it might just pay off,” the Miami Herald Editorial Board noted Tuesday. “Kissing the ring — to America’s detriment — has worked in the past, and it might work again for Florida’s ambitious governor.”

The Biden campaign believes Florida is in play, and political analysts say with both abortion and marijuana on the ballot there, Florida is a battleground state and one the President could win. NBC News reported earlier this month the Biden team sees Florida as “winnable.”

“’Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,’ Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Biden’s campaign manager, wrote in a memo,” NBC News had first reported.

READ MORE: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Calling it “a sign that he is serious about winning the state,” Axios reported last week the Biden campaign is opening a field office in Florida.

On Tuesday the Associated Press reported that “Florida Democrats hope young voters will be driven to the polls by ballot amendments legalizing marijuana and enshrining abortion rights. They hope the more tolerant views of young voters on those issues will reverse an active voter registration edge of nearly 900,000 for Republicans in Florida, which has turned from the ultimate swing state in 2000 to reliably Republican in recent years.”

Watch DeSantis’ remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Published

on

Donald Trump claimed he has “pretty strong views” on the medication abortion drug mifepristone, vowed he would make a statement on it in two weeks, and when he missed his self-imposed deadline the ex-president said he would do so in one week, according to a TIME magazine cover story interview and transcript published Tuesday.

Abortion has become a critical election issue, with Democrats fully supporting a woman’s right to choose and most Republicans strongly opposed. Some Republicans and those on the far-right support a ban, are attempting to ban, or refusing to protect in-vitro fertilization (IVF), as well as mifepristone, which is widely-used, safe, and available by mail in many states.

In the wide-ranging interview with TIME’s Eric Cortellessa, Trump made clear he would not weigh in on a national abortion ban, insisting it could not happen because the Supreme Court sent the issue to the states. Several Republicans and far-right activists have openly promoted national abortion bans.

Trump, according to a transcript of his interview TIME published, also appeared unfamiliar with – or unable or unwilling to discuss – some issues that have been an important part of the national conversation, including IVF, mifepristone, and attaching legal “personhood” status to fetuses, or embryos, in the womb.

RELATED: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

“Your allies in the Republican Study Committee, which makes up about 80% of the GOP caucus, have included the Life of Conception act in their 2025 budget proposal. The measure would grant full legal rights to embryos. Is that your position as well?” TIME’s Cortellessa asked Trump.

“Say it again. What?” the ex-president replied.

“The Life at Conception Act would grant full legal rights to embryos, included in their 2025 budget proposal. Is that your position?” Cortellessa explained, asking again.

“I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Texas is different than Ohio,” Trump replied, ignoring that the bill is a federal bill sponsored by Republicans in the House and Senate.

“Would you veto that bill?” Cortellessa pressed.

“I don’t have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states,” Trump insisted, not giving a direct answer. “They’re gonna make those determinations.”

Cortellessa’s next question: “Do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone?”

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Again, Trump refused to give a direct answer.

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week,” he said, unwilling to even engage in any conversation about it.

“Well, this is a big question, Mr. President,” Cortellessa pressed, “because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?”

“I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days,” Trump vowed.

“You will?” the reporter again pressed.

“Yeah, I have a big statement on that. I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue,” Trump claimed, refusing to discuss it further.

TIME reports the original Trump interview took place at Mar-a-Lago on April 12, and a follow up interview was conducted by phone April 27.

“Last time we spoke, you said you had an announcement coming over the next two weeks regarding your policy on the abortion pill mifepristone. You haven’t made an announcement yet. Would you like to do so now?” Cortellessa asked Trump.

“No, I haven’t,” he acknowledged. “I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. But I don’t think it will be shocking, frankly. But I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. We’re for helping women, Eric. I am for helping women. You probably saw that the IVF came out very well. And, you know, I set a policy on it, and the Republicans immediately adopted the policy.”

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

 

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Published

on

With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears, by NCRM’s count, nearly 200 times.

Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.

Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.

In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.

The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.

“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.

“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”

TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.

But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”

“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.

Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”

That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:
– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”

Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.

“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.

Trump apologists: No way, calm down.

Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.