UPDATE: Dr. Hager has told reporters that he will be leaving the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the end of June. So that’s good news. So long, and please be under the next bus out of town. But it still leaves Plan B unavailable over the counter, unfortunately.
Dr. W. David Hager, a gynecologist and leading conservative activist on “women’s issues,” is in the news today for seeming to admit having been asked to send a “minority report” regarding “Plan B” contraception to the FDA. The overwhelming majority of the expert panelists had recommended making “Plan B” an over-the-counter drug. From the Washington Post:
Speaking at the Asbury College chapel in Wilmore, Ky., Hager said, “I was asked to write a minority opinion that was sent to the commissioner of the FDA. For only the second time in five decades, the FDA did not abide by its advisory committee opinion, and the measure was rejected.”
Hager told the group that he had not written his report from an “evangelical Christian perspective,” but from a scientific one — arguing that the panel had too little information on how easier availability of Plan B would affect girls younger than 16. The FDA later cited that lack of information as the reason it rejected the application.
“I argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision,” Hager said. “Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good.” […]
While the FDA sometimes rejects the recommendations of its expert panels, the Plan B case was highly unusual in that the vote was so lopsided in favor of over-the-counter sales and its own science staff had also strongly favored approval.
As far as I can understand, whether or not there’s a scandal here depends on that horribly unspecific “I was asked…” Who did the asking? If it was someone at the FDA, or the Bush Administration, that could be an example of improperly trying to make politics – or personal religious convictions – influence what should be a decision made on scientific grounds.
Unfortunately, even if President Bush himself called Hager and asked him to make up some basis for rejecting the application, as long as Hagar is smart enough to not say so in public, I doubt anything here will stick. The truth is, virtually everyone knows that the primary grounds for opposing Plan B is not scientific. The Republican contempt for science is not exactly news.
Maybe I’m wrong; maybe something here will stick, or someone will be able to use this information to pressure the FDA into letting scientific concerns rule the day. I hope so.
But there’s another, ultra-disturbing aspect to this story. Dr. Hagar – the author of As Jesus Cared for Women, and one of the go-to conservative activists for moral and medical guidance on sexual issues – has been credibly accused of rape by his ex-wife, co-author of some of his published writing and a Republican, conservative Christian.
From a Nation article released today (these are just bits and pieces, read the whole thing):
By the 1980s, according to Davis, Hager was pressuring her to let him videotape and photograph them having sex. She consented, and eventually she even let Hager pay her for sex that she wouldn’t have otherwise engaged in–for example, $2,000 for oral sex, “though that didn’t happen very often because I hated doing it so much. So though it was more painful, I would let him sodomize me, and he would leave a check on the dresser,” Davis admitted to me with some embarrassment. This exchange took place almost weekly for several years.
Money was an explosive issue in their household. Hager kept an iron grip on the family purse strings.[…]
By 1995, according to Davis’s account, Hager’s treatment of his wife had moved beyond morally reprehensible to potentially felonious. […] For the next seven years Hager sodomized Davis without her consent while she slept roughly once a month until their divorce in 2002, she claims.[…]
As Hager began fielding calls from the White House personnel office in 2001, the stress in the household–and, with it, the abuse–hit an all-time high, according to Davis. […]
For a while, fears of poverty, isolation and damnation were enough to keep Davis from seeking a divorce. She says that she had never cheated on Hager, but after reuniting with a high school sweetheart (not her current husband) in the chaotic aftermath of September 11, she had a brief affair. En route to their first, and only, rendezvous, she prayed aloud. “I said to the Lord, ‘All right. I do not want to die without having sex with someone I love,'” she remembers. “‘I want to know what that’s like, Lord. I know that it’s a sin, and I know this is adultery. But I have to know what it’s like.'”
Davis was sure that God would strike her dead on her way home that weekend. But when nothing happened, she took it as a good sign. Back in Lexington, she walked through her front door and made a decision right there on the spot. “I said, ‘David, I want a divorce.'”
Marital rape is a foreign concept to many women with stories like this one. Indeed, Linda Davis had never heard the term until midway through her divorce.[…]
As it turned out, when the dust settled after their divorce, nearly everyone in the Hagers’ Christian and medical circles in Lexington had sided with Hager, who told people that his wife was mentally unstable and had moved in with another man (she moved in with friends).
Davis had only told a handful of people about the abuse throughout her marriage, but several of her longtime confidantes confirmed for this article that she had told them of the abuse at the time it was occurring. Wilson, the attorney, spoke to me on the record, as did Brenda Bartella Peterson, Davis’s close friend of twenty-five years. Several others close to Davis spoke to me off the record. Two refused to speak to me and denounced Davis for going public, but they did not contest her claims.[…]
As disturbing as they are on their own, Linda Davis’s allegations take on even more gravity in light of Hager’s public role as a custodian of women’s health. […] The public has a right to call on Dr. David Hager to answer Linda Davis’s charges before he is entrusted with another term. After all, few women would knowingly choose a sexual abuser as their gynecologist, and fewer still would likely be comfortable with the idea of letting one serve as a federal adviser on women’s health issues.
I feel bad about how much I cut out there. Read the whole article, it’s quite compelling. And infuriating.
My first reaction is to feel very sad for all that Linda Davis has suffered.
I’m leery of politicizing Davis’ personal tragedy too much. But I’m struck by the fact that Linda Davis – who had never even heard of “marital rape” until recently, and who seems unlikely to know much about feminism – has described an abusive marriage that matches, in every detail, what feminists say about how abusers operate.
The abuser is controlling; the abuser can be charming; the abuser believes in the male right (and “duty”) of taking a leadership position within the household; the abuser has weird issues with prostitution and pornography; and the abuser knows how to get the community on his side. Fear of poverty, fear of disbelief, commitment to her family obligations and her marriage, and not having anyplace to go keeps the victim by her abuser’s side. Davis is probably no feminist, but the story she tells is exactly what feminists have been saying about abuse for decades.
(Although Davis probably doesn’t see it this way, I find it unsurprising that it was only when she built a new relationship – that is, only when she had someplace else to go – that she was able to demand a divorce. I don’t criticize Davis even slightly for that; I only wish that she could have found a way to leave much earlier, and that all abuse victims could have someplace else to go).
This is what’s wrong with the idea of a male duty to head the household, in my view; no doubt some kind men take on that “duty” with kindness, but not all men are kind. An abuser and rapist like David Hager (and I know he hasn’t been and probably never will be convicted in a courtroom, but in my personal opinion Davis’ account is entirely believable) takes that message as a license to abuse and rape. And a community that beleives in male headship will take his side and defend his “rights” until given genuinely extraordinary evidence of abuse.
And, as the Nation article says, it’s beyond disturbing that this rapist and abuser has become one of the nation’s leading “guardians” and “advocates” for women’s health.
Amp, I’m not writing to dispute anything you say, but rather just to urge you, with friendly intent, to relax some of the harshest language in your post for your own sake. Calling a man a rapist (as opposed to an “alleged rapist” or “accused rapist”) when he hasn’t been convicted looks squarely libelous. Sure, the odds that he would ever sue you are remote, but words live forever on the Internet, and why take the chance?
“An abuser and rapist like David Hager (and I know he hasn’t been and probably never will be convicted in a courtroom, but in my personal opinion Davis’ account is entirely believable) takes that message as a license to abuse and rape…”
Has this guy been formally charged?
You know, if he were a charged or convicted rapist, then it would be appropriate to call him a charged rapist or a convicted rapist. Since he is neither, it is appropriate to call him a rapist.
The overwhelming majority of rapists are never charged. The overwhelming majority of rapists are never convicted. The vast majority of women who are raped know their rapist. Do you (Masculiste and Tom T) believe that women should automatically not be treated as credible when they publicly identify their rapist, unless they are able to get a prosecutor to prosecute and a jury to convict. Amp accepts her claims as credible on its merits, and therefore considers Dr Hager a rapist. Since amp considers Dr Hager to be one, why should he not call him one? Particularly since he lays out the basis for the claim and specifies that Dr. Hager has not been convicted (and implies that he hasn’t been charged)?
Since amp considers Dr Hager to be one, why should he not call him one?
Defamation lawsuits, for one.
Isn’t the truth a defense against libel? You’re the lawyer, Mythago, so you’d know better than I.
If he ever had sex with his wife against her will, he’s a rapist. I think bringing this to trial could be interesting. Imagine the publicity it’d garner against Bush.
Shades of Bernie Kerik. What is it with Bush and evil creeps like Kerik and Hager?
Okay… well… if Hagar isn’t suing his ex-wife for slander or whatever for calling him a rapist… why would he sue Ampersand for calling him a rapist? I mean surely his ex-wife saying it would surely be considered more libelous than Ampersand saying it on a blog, no?
Actually, isn’t mere belief in the truth of your claims a defense against libel in the US? Particularly against a public figure? Particularly when your claim includes a full explaination of your reason for reaching your conclusions?
Now, if Amp started refering to Hager as “that rapist Hager” every time Hager’s name came up in any context, I could see how that would be potentially inviting trouble, particularly if Amp started trolling the net for places to mention Hager. But arguing that someone is a rapist, and ending by saying that you don’t think a rapist like that should hold appointed public office doesn’t seem actionable.
However, since you are a lawyer, and I trust your motives, Mythago, I would certainly be likely to bow to your opinion on this.
Charles, don’t impugn my motives. My comment casts no aspersions on Ms. Davis’s credibility. I’m simply trying to make sure that Amp is aware of a possible bad consequence to him from some of what he’s written.
Amp is generally entitled to state his opinion about Ms. Davis’s credibility. Presenting that opinion as a fact, however, can risk a defamation claim. There may not sound like a big difference between someone saying “I think her account of marital rape is believable” and saying “he’s a rapist,” but the legal effect of the latter can be vastly more significant.
Also, a personal, subjective belief in the truth of one’s writing is not necessarily a defense to libel even as to a public figure, if that writing shows “reckless disregard for the truth.” Again, it’s fine to say that she is believable, because that’s opinion. But as long as there’s the possibility that he’s innocent, stating as a fact that he’s guilty runs a risk of being found to be reckless. I would venture to guess that the Nation does not call Hager a rapist outright. Certainly, Amp might win in court, but is it really worth that hassle and expense? After all, the problem can likely be avoided simply by adding the word “accused” or “alleged.”
(By the way, the distinction you’ve drawn in comment 3 strikes me as too inclusive. I am not a charged or convicted rapist, Amp is not a charged or convicted rapist, and I assume that you are not a charged or convicted rapist. Still, in my view, it’s not appropriate to call you, me, or Amp a rapist.)
Chloe, I did acknowledge that the possibility was remote. One scenario might be, though, that if Hager sues the Nation, it’s not particularly expensive to add Amp as a defendant as well.
Amp, just for the record, I’m not your lawyer, and this is not intended as legal advice. I’m just a friendly reader trying to point out a possible pitfall.
Mythago writes:
Really? Hager is going to sue Ampesand for quoting from a Nation article?
Have libel laws changed recently?
*snort*
Oh the crime of being called a rapist!
How horrid.
Really? Hager is going to sue Ampesand for quoting from a Nation article?
I doubt Amp is likely to get sued for making posts on his blog, frankly, but you asked why Amp shouldn’t call somebody a rapist if Amp believes that person to be one. Defamation lawsuits are one reason it’s wise to be careful what you call people and of what you accuse them.
Truth is a defense to defamation. Really, really believing it was true isn’t. Short summary of US defamation law here. In most jurisdictions, accusing a person of criminal conduct or sexual immorality is defamatory ‘per se’–the law assumes the subject suffered damages, you don’t have to prove that there WERE damages.
(I suppose at this point I should note that rape laws vary by state, and that if Hager forced his wife to have sex in a state that does not consider forced sex between non-estranged spouses to be rape, then legally he is not a rapist.)
Actually, isn’t mere belief in the truth of your claims a defense against libel in the US? Particularly against a public figure? Particularly when your claim includes a full explaination of your reason for reaching your conclusions?
No, public figures are a different animal, but not fair game for any comments at all, and no.
I’m hardly trying to defend Hager here–at the very least he’s a misogynistic asshole–and while I’m a lawyer, I don’t specialize in First Amendment law. But generally speaking, while on a practical level it’s unlikely Amp would be sued by Hager, there is a reason newspapers say things like “alleged rapist”.
Libel laws aside, this kind of behavior betrays a thirst for exerting power and control over those deemed lesser (as does mulefucking and forcing one’s wife into group sex for your own gratification).
It’s highly disturbing, to say the least. And this guy is the Bush nominee for reproductive health issues at the FDA.
“*snort*
Oh the crime of being called a rapist!
How horrid.”
Oh indeed! There’s nothing wrong with calling a woman coming forward a gold-digging whore. I’m sure if Amp referred to the ex-Mrs. Hager as the gold-digging whore and a hysterical vindictive ex-wife, guys like Tom T. wouldn’t be shitting a brick over ‘libel’ issues. We should ONLY protect they guy’s credibility, right? After all women who come forward with any claim of being rape, assaulted, abused, etc are just being hysterical and are after money and attention, and have ZERO credibility to begin with, right? So who cares about protecting them from slander, libel, and abuse!
::gags::
When in doubt, discredit and mock the alleged victim, and put alleged criminal on a pedestal and protect him(or her) at all costs.
guys like Tom T. wouldn’t be shitting a brick over ‘libel’ issues
Isn’t there a technical term for ‘pretending there are no women in the room and paying attention only to the men’? I’m pretty sure anti-feminists are all into that one.
There’s probably another Latin term for ‘taking your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme to stuff words into their mouth’, too.
Just for the record, Tom T. has posted on “Alas” eighty or so times before, and I don’t think he’s harboring secret bad motives. Please give ’em the benefit of the doubt, folks. :-)
I guess it feels intellectually dishonest for me to stick “alleged” before every word. It would probably be the smart thing for me to do, but I still don’t want to do it. I think the post as a whole makes the facts of the case, and what my opinion is based on, clear.
And it’s just not my opinion that he’s an alleged rapist. It’s a fact that he’s an” alleged rapist”; it’s my opinion that he’s a rapist. I think that courts – and “Alas” readers – are smart enough to understand the distinction between fact and opinion.
Dr. David Hagar to leave FDA advisory panel
Linguistic diversion: I would say it’s your belief that he’s a rapist, not your opinion.. Your opinions (“Tomatoes taste good,” “Robert Jordan is a mediocre writer”) are subjective viewpoints. Your beliefs (“Marjane Satrapi was born in Rasht, Iran,” “the Earth is 91 million miles away from the sun”) concern the objective nature of reality. They may be true or false (I think your belief that Hager was a rapist is true).
The second most disturbing thing (after the whole repeated rape thing) about this is that I’ve encountered Bush-defenders elsewhere on the internet (e.g. on Matthew Yglesias’s blog) who are saying stuff like, “what, are liberals opposed to anal sex?” It really seems like consent isn’t that big a deal to them. Well, maybe it’s a bigger deal than they let on, and they’re just falling into the human failing of defending people they like even though they know their actions are immoral. I really hope that’s the case. I saw some really disturbing arguments though, along the lines of “well, she was married to him! What did she expect?”
Omg, I hadn’t heard Hager is leaving! Thanks for posting that link, Anne. Yay!
The day we stop referring to women who come forward as sluts, liars, and golddiggers and start putting “alleged” in front of those terms is the day I’ll start riding Amp to say “alleged” rapist.
Okay, I know I’m going to be accused of blaming the victim, BUT… Linda Davis (Carruth) co-wrote Stress and the Woman’s Body with David Hager! Remember what I said about anti-feminist women running to the feminists for protection once the going gets tough? Prime example.
Of course, she did not deserve to be raped. I’m not saying that. But who the heck does this dumb b**** think got all those laws against rape passed? Who fought for her right to get divorced from an abusive husband? And how does she repay them? By writing this stupid book.
She shouldn’t have been raped, and for that I am sorry. But no sympathy for her overall situation, not from me. She made made money off of oppressing women. She probably still gets royalties from it. How does it feel to be oppressed, sweetie?
Feminists are way too nice.
Pseudo-Adrienne, I don’t care a fig about Hager. I commented because I care about Amp.
To be fair, Redneck, even in this case, she didn’t run to another feminist. Or, if the woman who interviewed her identifies as feminist, it’s not the important thing for Davis. The woman who interviews her is a fellow evangelical Christian and Davis was speaking not to a feminist cause but because of her anger at his hypocrisy. Like Amp said, the fact that her tale fits the typical feminist telling of abuse is a testament to the fact that abuse in marriages tends to follow a predictable pattern.
I didn’t mean to say that her interviewer was a feminist. This is what I meant:
And this from The Nation:
Ever hear of getting a job? Who was preventing her from doing so? You could say David Hager, but did he actually have that legal authority? No. It was her choice to cling to an oppressive ideology rather than to help herself.
You could say David Hager, but did he actually have that legal authority?
There are all kinds of ways abusers prevent their spouses from getting financial independence that have nothing to do with “legal authority.”
I think that courts – and “Alas”? readers – are smart enough to understand the distinction between fact and opinion.
Again, Amp, saying “he’s a rapist” is a direct accusation of criminal behavior and sexual misconduct, and while practically you’re not really in much danger of a lawsuit, it is something to be aware of. Not because any of us care about Hager, but we care about you.
Julian’s right–these people either deliberately lie or don’t distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual sex. That’s why they prattle on about how accepting gays will lead to child rape and incestuous marriage. For them, if you change any of their very rigid rules about sex, you have to discard all of them.
I really wonder if some of these people want those rules in place because it’s necessary for them to get it up. It’s no fun if it’s not dirty, y’know.
I would suspect that there’s some fire here with the smoke or Dr. Hagar would not be resigning. At the very least his speech and his ex-wife’s rebuttal have made him too hot to handle.
On another note: Imagine having this guy as a doctor! How many women has he wrongly or incompletely treated by imposing his paternalistic views and out-dated medicine on their medical care? they probably never knew that there was better medicine available.
Scary, huh?
Actually I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair statement, Redneck, since she did after all co-write at least one book with him. Offensive as that book might be, where were the royalties? Also, was she a stay-at-home parent during the relationship (no mention of children is made that I’ve seen – though that might be an oversight on my part)? Either way, his typical abuser stance of controlling the money amply provides an understanding of what the relationship ‘might’ have been like for her. No doubt she fucked up in a lot of ways, and has played a role in justifying the victimization of other women, but that doesn’t justify the victimization that seems to have been done to her.
Redneck – a favorite MLK quote of mine comes to mind when considering this situation.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
They have three kids. They had two, then her husband had an affair, and then this brain child had one more!
She probably did receive royalties. But she either let him control those too, or else they weren’t enough. Kind of funny how the only way she makes money is by trying to put other women in their place.
Conservative women are the best at playing the helpless victim, and this douchebag is a prime example. I have no sympathy for her. If there is a failure of feminism, it’s that we haven’t been able to convince women to take responsibility for themselves.
RF, no doubt they both by into the “man as head of the household no matter what” garbage, which interestingly seems a lot like the controlling abuser stance Kim describes (although I’m sure that idea is not news to any of you).
One detail that might have been lost among all the other horrible things about Douchebag David Hager was the implication of this bit:
As best I can parse this statement, the “what” in “what Satan meant for evil” refers back to “a scientific perspective.” Can you see any other noun that pronoun could be referencing here? I mean, I’d expect a whackadoo like R. J. Rushdoony to come out and explicitly state his belief the scientific perspective is a tool of satan, but this creep’s a doctor for frack’s sake!
“For the next seven years Hager sodomized Davis without her consent while she slept roughly once a month until their divorce in 2002, she claims.”
I bet Assange fans would say Davis must have consented to the sodomy by going to bed with Hager the same way they say the woman who IRL agreed to sex with Assange only with a condom must have consented to Assange penetrating her without a condom after she fell asleep…