Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Social Activism’ Category

Louisiana Lawmaker Explains Why Controversial Abortion Legislation Is Bad Policy

I. Artificial Barriers

Earlier this week, a Louisiana lawmaker forcefully explained why HB 388, a bill that would force the closure of three of the state’s five abortion clinics by establishing a series of superfluous licensing and facilities requirements, is bad policy. Quoting (bold mine):

State licensing requirements can impose unnecessary burdens on medical practitioners, also limiting access to health care. Given that the supply of doctors is not expected to keep up with projected demand, policy-makers should allow other medical professionals to utilize more of their expertise to provide more affordable and convenient care for patients.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine recommended that all professionals should be empowered to practice to the full scope of their professional training.

States should modify their licensing requirements to remove artificial barriers impeding the ability to provide high-quality care.

States must also act prudently to protect patient quality and maintain high standards. Doing so would expand access to care, allowing Minute Clinics and other similar entities to treat patients quickly and at lower cost than hospital emergency rooms or other sources of care (footnotes omitted).”

As the lawmaker points out, the imposition of unnecessary licensing requirements creates “artificial barriers” to health care services and disempowers physicians from practicing “the full scope of their professional training.” And this, of course, is precisely the intent of HB 388, the misnamed “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act.”

image_2

Louisiana’s version of a cheap, artificial barrier.

2. The Twitter Amendments

I first sounded the alarm on HB 388 a few weeks ago. In its initial iteration, among other things, the bill changed the statutory definition of “first trimester” for the purposes of the state’s Outpatient Abortion Facility Licensing Law from “6 to 14 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period” to “up to 14 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.” Given that it also expanded requirements for doctors who “prescribe(s), dispense(s), administer(s), or provide(s) any drug or chemical to a pregnant woman for the purpose of inducing an abortion” (bold mine) and given that many on the religious right (including Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum, who claimed to be “working” with Representative Jackson on this legislation) believe, contrary to science, that the morning after pill is an abortifacient, I was concerned that the broad language of the bill could be interpreted as enabling the strict regulation of emergency contraception.

Importantly and notably, RU-486, the so-called abortion pill, cannot be administered until at least the fifth week of pregnancy, so it is suspicious and troubling that the bill’s authors seek to dramatically change the statutory definition of “first trimester” in the state’s licensing laws.

After I published my concerns, the story was picked up nationally by both Salon and Jezebel and by The Times-Picayune. State Representative Katrina Jackson told the Times-Pic that there was nothing in the bill that would do what I claimed it could do, that her bill was the victim of misinformation.

Screen Shot 2014-04-05 at 6.04.52 AM

 

Then, Representative Jackson blocked me on Twitter.

And then, believe it or not, she amended the bill to exclude emergency contraception and to ensure that all reporting to the state was both aggregate and anonymous.

I’m pleased, of course, that Representative Jackson amended her terrible bill, but as I have previously stated, any concerns about the potential strict regulation of emergency contraception pale in comparison to concerns about what the bill expressly accomplishes.

Representative Jackson publicly denied working with Gene Mills and the Louisiana Family Forum. Via Twitter:

Screen Shot 2014-04-05 at 6.48.58 AM

 

And here is Representative Jackson only a few days later:

State Representative Katrina Jackson and Reverend Gene Mills, President of the Louisiana Family Forum

State Representative Katrina Jackson and Reverend Gene Mills, President of the Louisiana Family Forum

And again:

Screen Shot 2014-04-05 at 6.58.35 AM

It certainly didn’t take much time for Katrina and Gene to become friends.

3. What Would Happen If We Banned Abortions?

For decades, abortion has been the single most controversial and single most divisive issue in American politics and American law.

Among its fiercest opponents, the issue is fairly simple: Murder is illegal, abortion is murder, and therefore, abortion should be illegal as well. To be sure, many opponents of abortion support the procedure in rare and extreme circumstances- rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in imminent danger- but nonetheless, the end goal is clear: Overruling Roe v. Wade and either enacting a federal ban on abortions or allowing states the ability to pass their own laws banning abortions.

As I have stated previously, I agree with President Bill Clinton, who said, memorably, “Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.” In my opinion, President Clinton provides a workable and realistic framework by which to evaluate public policy on abortion. But it requires abortion opponents to make a major concession: It requires them to agree that abortion should be legal.

For many, this is likely impossible. Their position on the issue of abortion isn’t primarily informed by legal analysis or statistics; it is informed by deeply-held religious beliefs on the very nature and definition of life itself.

I doubt I will change anyone’s mind here, but I think it is absolutely critical to consider: What actually happens if the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and the Congress and the President ban abortions except in the most limited circumstances?

First and most obviously, a ban on abortion would result in a dramatic increase in unwanted pregnancies being brought to term and, with that, according to economist Steven Levitt, an increase in crime.

Consider this:

Even if you disagree with Levitt’s provocative theory, one thing is for certain: Banning abortion would not eliminate abortion. Instead, it would force abortions into the “back alley;” the procedure would be criminal, completely unregulated, and significantly more dangerous, resulting in an increase in abortion-related deaths.

Quoting from a 2007 report published by The New York Times (bold mine):

A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.

This is hugely important, and it’s why legislation like Katrina Jackson’s HB 388 is so misguided and dangerous. No matter how hard you may try or how earnest your spiritual beliefs about the sanctity of life may be, abortion has been a part of human society since ancient Egypt, and we can’t legislate it out of practice. When we try, we only make it exponentially more dangerous.

4. Why Katrina Jackson’s Bill Is Based On A Lie

Representative Jackson claims that her bill will make abortions “safer.” That is, unquestionably, a wholly unsubstantiated lie.

This isn’t about making abortions “safer;” it’s about shutting down the majority of the state’s abortion clinics. You may think that is a good thing, but still, let’s be honest about the real intent and true purpose of this legislation: It has nothing to do with the safety of abortions. Ms. Jackson’s bill is nothing more than a cynical attempt to unduly burden and intimidate the physicians who provide abortion services and the women who seek those services.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that, under Louisiana’s current regulatory regime, any of the state’s five abortion clinics are engaging in unsafe or dangerous practices. There is no evidence whatsoever that the physicians who work at these clinics are or have ever been negligent or that they are, in any way, unqualified. The entire premise of Ms. Jackson’s bill is based on a lie.

Second and perhaps more importantly, the real meat of the bill- the requirement that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles- has nothing to do with ensuring “safety” standards and everything to do with professionally devastating abortion providers. Hospitals do not have to automatically provide “admitting privileges” to any physician who requests them, and in a state dominated by a network of Catholic and Baptist hospitals, there is no incentive for any hospital to provide admitting privileges to a physician who performs abortions.

Either way, the “admitting privileges” requirement is also based on a lie. Gloria Bilchik of The Daily Kos explains (bold mine):

Anti-reproductive-rights advocates and legislators would have us believe that, if a medical emergency occurs during an abortion, the doctor in charge needs to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in order to ensure the safety of the woman. On the surface, that argument sounds plausible.  But, in reality, it’s a fraudulent concept—and proponents know that.

Why? Because, when there’s an emergency, admitting privileges become irrelevant. Under a 1986 federal law known as EMTALA, hospitals are required to provide care to anyone who needs emergency care [with or without insurance, by the way.] This requirement includes pregnant women who need a life-saving abortion, are in labor, or are suffering the effects of a botched abortion.

Ms. Bilchik is exactly right: EMTALA already ensures that any man, woman, or child in need of emergency care must be treated and stabilized. Requiring abortion providers to maintain “hospital admitting privileges” may sound like a reasonable requirement, but it’s a farce, or, as Ms. Bilchik states, “a fraud.”

5. What Does This Mean? Surveying the Legal Landscape After Roe and Planned Parenthood

Currently, there is only one physician in the entire state of Louisiana who performs abortions and has hospital admitting privileges. This physician’s admitting privileges are with a hospital near clinics in Shreveport and Bossier City. And although the physician also travels to Baton Rouge to perform abortions in its clinic, under the proposed law, the physician would subsequently become prohibited from performing abortions in Baton Rouge, because the physician’s admitting privileges are at a hospital much more than thirty miles away- in Shreveport. None of the two clinics in New Orleans employ physicians with hospital admitting privileges.

What does this mean?

It means that the clinics in Baton Rouge and New Orleans will be forced to close and that a woman from New Orleans or Slidell or Marrero seeking an abortion in Louisiana will be forced to take an 800 mile round trip to a clinic in either Shreveport or Bossier City.

It means that the State of Louisiana is actively considering legislation that would unduly burden a woman from exercising her fundamental right to obtain an abortion, a fundamental right the courts have routinely defined as being located in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the clause that relates to the protection of liberty interests.

As much as abortion opponents and many on the religious right oppose, without any reservation, the decision in Roe v. Wade, it established that a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion is no longer considered “fundamental” once the fetus is considered viable. Hence, after Roe, state legislatures all over the country began passing bans on late-term or partial birth abortions.

Nineteen years after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reaffirmed its support of Roe, and considered the constitutionality of series of laws, including spousal consent and, in the case of minors, parental consent.  As Justice O’Conner, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter wrote in the plurality opinion (bold mine):

Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps *851 in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850-51, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2806, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992)

And further down (bold mine):

From what we have said so far it follows that it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy. We conclude that the basic decision in Roe was based on a constitutional analysis which we cannot now repudiate. The woman’s liberty is not so unlimited, however, that from the outset the State cannot show its concern for the life of the unborn, and at a later point in fetal development the State’s interest in life has sufficient force so that the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy can be restricted.

That brings us, of course, to the point where much criticism has been directed at Roe, a criticism that always inheres when the Court draws a specific rule from what in the Constitution is but a general standard. We conclude, however, that the urgent claims of the woman to retain the ultimate control over her destiny and her body, claims implicit in the meaning of liberty, require us to perform that function. Liberty must not be extinguished for want of a line that is clear. And it falls to us to give some real substance to the woman’s liberty to determine whether to carry her pregnancy to full term.

We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that before that time the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. We adhere to this principle for two reasons. First, as we have said, is the doctrine of stare decisis. Any judicial act of line-drawing may seem somewhat arbitrary, but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care. We have twice reaffirmed it in the face of great opposition. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S., at 759, 106 S.Ct., at 2178; Akron I, 462 U.S., at 419–420, 103 S.Ct., at 2487–2488. Although we must overrule those parts of Thornburgh and Akron I which, in our view, are inconsistent **2817 with Roe‘s statement that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn, see infra, at 2823–2824, the central premise of those cases represents an unbroken commitment by this Court to the essential holding of Roe.It is that premise which we reaffirm today.

The second reason is that the concept of viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 163, 93 S.Ct., at 731. Consistent with other constitutional norms, legislatures may draw lines which appear arbitrary without the necessity of offering a justification. But courts may not. We must justify the lines we draw. And there is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, see supra, at 2811, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits given that the medical community and all those who must apply its discoveries will continue to explore the matter. The viability line also has, as a practical matter, an element of fairness. In some broad sense it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State’s intervention on behalf of the developing child.

The woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade. It is a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce.

On the other side of the equation is the interest of the State in the protection of potential life. The Roe Court recognized the State’s “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.” Roe, supra, at 162, 93 S.Ct., at 731. The weight to be given this state interest, not the strength of the woman’s interest, was the difficult question faced in Roe. We do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions.The matter is not before us in the first instance, and coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe‘s wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe‘s resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. And we have concluded that the essential holding of Roe should be reaffirmed.

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 869-71, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2816-17, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992)

If you’ve kept up with me so far, hang in for just a few more minutes. Admittedly, I have given you a lot to consider, but for a good reason.

This, I believe is the most important part of the Planned Parenthood holding. Quoting (bold mine):

A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. A statute with this purpose is invalid because the means chosen by the State to further the interest in potential life must be calculated to inform the woman’s free choice, not hinder it. And a statute which, while furthering the interest in potential life or some other valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends.

To the extent that the opinions of the Court or of individual Justices use the undue burden standard in a manner that is inconsistent with this analysis, we set out what in our view should be the controlling standard. Cf. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 489, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1467, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991) (attempting “to define the doctrine of abuse of the writ with more precision” after acknowledging tension among earlier cases). In our considered judgment, an undue burden is an unconstitutional burden. See Akron II, 497 U.S., at 519–520, 110 S.Ct., at 2983–2984 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).

Understood another way, we answer the question, left open in previous opinions discussing the undue burden formulation, whether a law designed **2821 to further the State’s interest in fetal life which imposes an undue burden on the woman’s decision before fetal viability could be constitutional. See, e.g., Akron I, 462 U.S., at 462–463, 103 S.Ct., at 2509–2510 (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting).

The answer is no. 

Some guiding principles should emerge. What is at stake is the woman’s right to make the ultimate decision, not a right to be insulated from all others in doing so. Regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose. See infra, at 2832 (addressing Pennsylvania’s parental consent requirement). *878 Unless it has that effect on her right of choice, a state measure designed to persuade her to choose childbirth over abortion will be upheld if reasonably related to that goal. Regulations designed to foster the health of a woman seeking an abortion are valid if they do not constitute an undue burden.

Even when jurists reason from shared premises, some disagreement is inevitable. Compare Hodgson, 497 U.S., at 482–497, 110 S.Ct., at 2961–2969 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part), with id., at 458–460, 110 S.Ct., at 2949–2950 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment in part). That is to be expected in the application of any legal standard which must accommodate life’s complexity. We do not expect it to be otherwise with respect to the undue burden standard. We give this summary:

(a) To protect the central right recognized by Roe v. Wade while at the same time accommodating the State’s profound interest in potential life, we will employ the undue burden analysis as explained in this opinion. An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

(b) We reject the rigid trimester framework of Roe v. Wade. To promote the State’s profound interest in potential life, throughout pregnancy the State may take measures to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed, and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long as their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.

(c) As with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion. Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.

Our adoption of the undue burden analysis does not disturb the central holding of Roe v. Wade, and we reaffirm that holding. Regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.

We also reaffirm Roe‘s holding that “subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 164–165, 93 S.Ct., at 732.

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877-79, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2820-21, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992)

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court explicitly advised lawmakers, I repeat, “Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.” Those regulations and laws, therefore, are unconstitutional.

Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that requiring that physicians who perform abortions maintain admitting privileges within thirty miles of their clinic is even remotely necessary. Already, Louisiana’s five abortion clinics are subject to much more regulation and oversight than our Surgical Ambulatory Centers, which perform much more complex medical procedures and operations. HB 388 is precisely what the plurality of Supreme Court justices were referencing: A completely unnecessary regulation, ostensibly done to improve health, but actually designed to “impose an undue burden” on the right of women to seek abortions.

6. Back to the Beginning

Which brings me back to the Louisiana lawmaker’s point about our healthcare system being bloated with ridiculous bureaucratic licensing requirements and constrained by artificial barriers that prevent patients from getting the care they need in local, neighborhood clinics and prevent physicians from doing their jobs.

He’s right, and Representative Katrina Jackson’s HB 388 is a perfect example.

To be fair, I doubt he ever considered Representative Jackson’s bill when he published his analysis, but, either way, I just hope he takes the time to heed his own advice.

Why?

Because that Louisiana lawmaker is none other than Governor Bobby JindalScreen Shot 2014-04-05 at 9.19.34 AM

Louisiana College President Joe Aguillard’s Vainglorious (And Terrifying) Attempts To Stifle Dissent

Something remarkable happened on the campus of Louisiana College in the early morning hours of Thursday. A dedicated group of students, working together, peppered the school’s grounds with fliers announcing a protest against their embattled and controversial President, Joe Aguillard, and calling on their peers and classmates to begin boycotting classes next Monday.

Student-Strike1

Aguillard, arguably, is the most incompetent college president in the country. During his tenure, Louisiana College has been repeatedly on the brink of academic and financial calamity. He has single-handedly driven off more than two-thirds of the faculty. He’s spent enormous amounts of time and resources chasing pipe dreams like a law school, medical school, and film school, while the undergraduate institution he was elected to lead has continued to suffer from neglect and disrepair.

He’s been a provocative and flamboyant sideshow, a man who attempted to demonstrate his spiritual mettle by, bizarrely, eating a live worm in front of a packed audience.

He’s been accused of misappropriating funds, spending more than $2,000 on clothing while on a trip to the African nation of Tanzania.

He’s attempted to conceal and mislead the public on his efforts to convince the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to redirect the money they pledged in the recovery effort after Hurricane Katrina to a medical school that he wanted to name after President George H.W. Bush, a man he apparently paid $100,000 for a thirty-minute speech during the college’s centennial.

After his former assistant was allegedly caught engaging in sexual activities and drug use with two 18 year old boys, both of whom were LC freshmen at the time, Aguillard didn’t immediately fire the man. For some reason, according to official minutes of the LC Board of Trustees, Aguillard seemed to suggest the college pay the man “blackmail money” to go away. And ultimately, that’s exactly what they did. The employee, according to Aguillard, was forging accreditation documents, and if anyone ever found out, if he ever went public, it could really hurt the college. So instead of firing him, they paid him off.

Today at Louisiana College, there is no law school. There is no medical school. There is no film school. Those absurd promises never materialized.

What remains, instead, is a crumbing undergraduate campus that requires more than $30 million in repairs. What remains, instead, is a school, once again, under investigation by SACS, its accrediting body. What remains, instead, is a dispirited student body and a devastated alumni, all of whom recognize the tremendous damage that Aguillard’s leadership has done to the value of their degree.

So, after seeing the fliers on campus on Thursday morning, President Aguillard immediately went into damage control mode, calling for a question and answer session that very afternoon at the Guinn Auditorium. Ostensibly, Aguillard was attempting to be transparent, but as most who have followed his farcical leadership should realize, this was just a sham. He wasn’t trying to be transparent; he was trying to reinforce his authority.

Joe Aguillard, from the very beginning of his tenure, has assumed the persona of a benevolent dictator, though, given his record, it is easy to question the man’s benevolence.

On Thursday afternoon, Aguillard stood on stage for nearly three hours, taking dozens of questions from students. In fairness to him, it was the boldest thing he has ever done in his ten years as LC President. Several students, who were critical of Aguillard, commended him, nonetheless, for his willingness to answer their questions.

But, truth be told, it was also an act of utter desperation.

*****

I’ve got good news, and I’ve got bad news. The bad news first.

I would have been more than willing to post the entire three-hour long video of Joe Aguillard’s question and answer session with students, but, unfortunately, the video was taken down almost as quickly as it was put up. Via WildcatsMedia’s Twitter account:

Screen Shot 2014-03-22 at 1.05.43 AM

Notice that LC actually posted the video early on Friday morning.

Only minutes after they posted the video, they took it down, and they’ve been scrambling ever since to explain why. I think it should be obvious.

But here’s the good news. As luck would have it, at 9:15AM on Friday morning, I saw their tweet; I clicked on the video, and I watched all of it- not once, but three times. Although I was unable to download the video, I did manage to get a substantial portion of the session on MP3 (apologies, in advance, for the IM pings and any dog barks).

Listen here: 


Sorry that it cut off when it did.

During the next two hours, Aguillard was forced to answer dozens of questions about his performance in office, and in the course of doing so, he exposed what is, ultimately, so flawed about his leadership and his understanding of his own job: Joe Aguillard thinks he’s the only adult on campus. He doesn’t respect his students as the independent adults they are, and to be sure, because the majority of the student body isn’t yet old enough to drink, it’s easier for him to treat these students like children.

I was particularly impressed by the questioning from a self-described “non-traditional” student who began by disclosing that her son is approaching the age where he should begin considering his options for college. (Hopefully, the entire video will be available soon, but for now, I’ll paraphrase). It was obvious that Joe Aguillard was uncomfortable with being confronted by an older student, and it was also obvious that this student, though respectful of him, would not be intimidated. She wondered what it would take for him to resign; she told him that he was harming the college’s reputation. After sitting through his hour-long confessional about how, among other things, he found Christ when, as an eight year old, his mother had convinced him that he was going to hell– a story, presumably, that Aguillard shared in order to make him seem preternaturally religious, special, maybe even chosen, but also a story that unwittingly was laden with undertones of emotional abuse, shame, and existential fear caused by a overbearing family– this student was still unimpressed. What it would it take you to resign, she wondered.

Aguillard responded by suggesting that God had hired him at Louisiana College, and the only way he would leave is if God (or the board, of course) told him to.

There are delusional narcissists in every religious tradition, but Aguillard really takes the cake. He openly, matter-of-factly admits to suppressing student speech and retaliating against anyone who criticizes him or his administration, as if squashing the First Amendment rights of American adults is par for the course in academia. He operates under the mistaken assumption that students are paying Louisiana College because Louisiana College has invited them to pay. “Thank you for your thousands of dollars. Now, refer to the student handbook to learn how you’ve just paid us to take away your rights.”

During the afternoon question and answer session, Aguillard implicitly threatened students who disparaged the college on social media; he firmly defended his ridiculous statement about the necessity of employees to be loyal to him, not necessarily competent, and he claimed that he had video surveillance footage of all of the students who passed out fliers supporting a protest.

It’s silly and egomaniacal. To me, there’s nothing particularly endearing or gripping about Aguillard’s version of reality. Among other things, he thought God was blessing Louisiana College because an old man whose wife had Alzheimer’s found $100,000 she’d stashed away only a few days after Aguillard had already committed to paying George H. W. Bush $100,000. That’s right: Thank you, Lord Jesus, for allowing Joe Aguillard the ability to take $100,000 from an old woman in hospice care and give it to the multi-millionaire former President of the United States for a thirty minute speech.

Again, it’s delusional.

He also seemed to suggest that the Armour law firm was under investigation by the Louisiana Bar Association, which, if untrue (and I don’t know one way or another), would constitute defamation. Thankfully, someone was able to record this video snippet:

I’ll let others parse through the rest of what Aguillard said, at least for now.

But I want to answer a question from a student named Emma who asked what Aguillard’s salary was. He was offended by the question. He called it rude. The truth is: It’s public record. Aguillard makes, at least (as of LC’s most recent 990 reports), $216,000 a year.

In his decade as President, his salary has almost doubled, which is about the only thing at LC that has grown under his watch.

Why The Prison Capital Of The World Should Legalize Marijuana

There are at least five places in my hometown of Alexandria, Louisiana where you purchase enormous quantities of the world’s most dangerous intoxicant from a drive-through window. You may be required to use some code words, like “Funky Cold Medina” and “Tiger Aid” and “Pink Panty Pull-Down.” And if you look like you’re under a certain age, you’ll probably need to show some identification. But, don’t worry, it’s all completely legal.

In Louisiana, the drive-through daiquiri isn’t just a quirky novelty for tourists; for many, it’s a lifestyle. The cocktail was invented in New Orleans, after all, and even during Prohibition, Louisiana was still, proudly and defiantly, soaking in booze. Louisiana loves its alcohol, always has, and those drive-through daiquiri bars are just a manifestation of our insistence to laissez les bon temps rouler. Or so we’ve convinced ourselves to believe.

To be sure, I don’t have any real problem with drive-through daiquiri bars, because with very few exceptions, daiquiris are disgusting, tart, toxic amalgamations of the cheapest and foulest well liquors on the planet. If your idea of a good time is a self-induced headache, acid reflux, and stomach pains, then you will likely enjoy the masochistic nightmare of a frozen drink with some cleverly trashy name. Personally, I’m not a fan, but I believe that adults should be free to pick their own poisons, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else.

Still, it strikes me as bizarre, hypocritical, and unseemly that Louisiana allows people to purchase potent alcoholic beverages from the comfort of their car’s driver seat, yet continues to enforce some of the world’s harshest and most draconian laws against citizens who possess small quantities of a naturally-occurring plant.

Forty-three years after President Richard Nixon coined the term and made his declaration, America’s “War on Drugs” is now the longest and most devastating war in our nation’s history. By any metric, it has been a complete and utter failure. Its uneven and selective enforcement means that an African-American boy from Baltimore or New Orleans or Detroit may spend months, if not years, in jail for using and possessing cocaine, while a wealthy white man vacationing at his parent’s home in Maine can abuse cocaine, drive drunk, and still dream of one day being elected President of the United States.

The War on Drugs perpetuates poverty and protects privilege. It has resulted in the widespread incarceration of generations of predominately minority and predominately poor Americans, indelibly smearing their records and creating a permanent underclass of citizens, citizens who become trapped in a system that rewards prosecutors for conviction rates and pays private prison operators based on quantity, not quality.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the prison capital of the world, the Great State of Louisiana.

During the current legislative session, lawmakers will consider at least ten different bills about marijuana, including, perhaps most importantly, Austin Badon’s HB 14, which would cut penalties for repeat offenders in half. The legislature will also consider HB 720 and SB 541, which would legalize medicinal marijuana and which, at least tentatively, seems to have the support of Governor Bobby Jindal.

These are encouraging steps, but ultimately, they don’t go far enough.

Even if Representative Badon’s meritorious and well-intentioned bill to reduce penalties for those who are guilty of repeat offenses of marijuana possession is approved, we are only kicking the can down the road. Like the people of Colorado, Washington State, and Washington, D.C., we should acknowledge, once and for all, that the criminalization of the use and possession of marijuana is disastrous, fatally flawed, and hypocritical public policy.

I will let others who are more knowledgeable debate the medicinal benefits of marijuana. I was born with cerebral palsy, which means that if I wanted to (and if HB 720 and SB 541 are passed and signed into law), I could probably get a prescription for medical marijuana in Louisiana. But I’m not inclined to, because I’ve been able to get by without any medication. However, if it does, in fact, work for people like me, I want to reserve my right, and I don’t want to be judged or persecuted or prosecuted.

For me, this is simple. It’s about social and economic justice. It’s about finally acknowledging that marijuana is actually less dangerous than the cocktails and the wine and the beer our legislators drink at Ruth’s Chris and Galatoires. In the history of humankind, no one has ever overdosed on marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes, however, kill people every single day.

Yesterday, Lauren McGaughy of The Times-Picayune published an extraordinarily insightful piece about Louisiana legislation on marijuana reform. According to Ms. McGaughy (who, in my opinion, is quickly asserting herself as one of the state’s best reporters), our draconian laws and penalties against marijuana use and possession have been and continue to be championed by the Louisiana District Attorney Association (LDAA).

Ms. McGaughy describes the LDAA as “powerful;” I think they’re foolish and horribly wrong. They are part of the problem, an organization led by people who apparently went to law school yet seem to care more about putting people behind bars than protecting and defending fundamental rights. I have absolutely no respect for the intellectual honesty or integrity of anyone, particularly someone with a degree in the law, who could review Louisiana’s absurdly punitive laws against possessing a plant and conclude that they’re appropriate and adequate.

This isn’t about good public policy to the LDAA; it’s about convictions, locking people up in jail for the flimsiest reasons.

It is shameful.

*****

I fully recognize that there is no possible way the Louisiana legislature and Governor Bobby Jindal would ever enact a law legalizing the recreational use and personal possession of marijuana. Our laws are still ten years behind Mississippi’s, for crying out loud.

But I strongly believe that I’m on the right side of history on this issue.

I’m not advocating in support of drug use, merely the fair and equal application of the law. I believe in being honest about science and medicine.

I am glad the Louisiana legislature is talking about changing our terrible laws, but ultimately, we shouldn’t be focused on making a bad law less bad; we should be focused on eliminating it entirely.

It’s a win-win, after all: We open up a huge source of tax revenue, and we rescue an entire generation of poor Louisianians from cynical district attorneys who value convictions over compassion.

%d bloggers like this: