clarence thomas wants you to know that you should hide your drugs in your underwear, because there’s no way that the school will have the balls to look for them there!

(in an amazing twist of logic, thomas wrote,

“Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments,” he said. “Nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.”

which might make some sense if redding actually had concealed anything in her underwear… but she hadn’t. thomas thinks it’s okay to abuse children because of what they might do. nice.)

the fourth circuit court of appeals has upheld virginia’s (previously overturned) “Partial Birth Infanticide Act,” which apparently criminalized a specific abortion method.

although it isn’t clear to the layperson (read: me) which procedure was banned, the wp describes this:

Although the Virginia law permits women to choose various abortion procedures, it specifically makes it a crime for doctors to perform a rare midterm abortion that involves partially delivering the fetus before crushing its skull to ease removal.

i haven’t yet had a chance to read the opinion myself, but the post’s coverage indicates that the majority’s opinion essentially reasoned that doctors’ criminal liability for performing this type of procedure is so unlikely that the fact of the criminal liability isn’t enough to invalidate the law.

the entire purpose of the law is to criminalize that abortion procedure. if it’s exceedingly unlikely to fulfill its purpose, the law is unnecessary legal accretion and has no reason to be cluttering up the books. taking the majority’s assertion (as interpreted by the post; as i mentioned, i haven’t yet read the opinion) at face value, if doctors are unlikely to actually face criminal prosecution for performing the procedure, and yet there’s substantial pressure to retain the law, there must be some other reason driving the decision.

hmmm. i wonder what it could be.

abortion opponents are apparently very willing to criminalize doctors’ therapeutic decisions. they seem to ignore the fact that if the doctor is committing a crime, then the woman is an accessory to the crime, and guilty of conspiracy as well. abortion opponents should be honest about their intent, and attempt to hold the woman criminally responsible as well. let’s see how far legislative efforts would go then.

earlier this month, maryland authorities issued a warning against consuming rockfish and bluefish caught in coastal atlantic waters (according to their chart, this doesn’t extend to rockfish caught in the chesapeake, but the chart hasn’t been updated since may ‘07).

the warning says that

pregnant women, women of childbearing age, nursing women and children under 6 should not eat rockfish or bluefish caught in the Atlantic by amateur fishermen. People not in those groups may eat one meal of rockfish, also called striped bass, from the Atlantic every month, and one meal of bluefish every other month.

note that it only applies to fish caught by amateur fishermen. not to commercially-caught rockfish or blues from the same area. why? well, it’s not because commercially-caught fish are safer. it’s because commercially-caught fish fall under federal jurisdiction.

when i have a spare moment, i’m going to check the feds to see if they’re also warning against eating those fish. it’s not like PCBs discriminate by type of fisherman.

update: a quick search on the fish & wildlife service website yields nothing; the FDA is equally useless. USDA?

i was browsing through the google analytics, curious about what search parameters bring people to this blog, and i came across this question buried in the list. it struck me that i’ve never really thought about it.

first, there are the definitional questions. what did the searcher mean by “worth it”? and – don’t laugh – what did he or she mean by “be”? is this a cost-benefit analysis? a worldview question? is my existence defined by my advanced academic degrees? (the short answer to that one is a resounding “no,” by the way.)

i grew up in a public health household, and the most fulfilling work i’ve ever done has been in that field. i decided to earn an mph for entirely economic reasons, though – the added income from the degree. there was very little offered in the coursework that i either hadn’t already studied, or hadn’t learned at the dinner table or in the field. (obviously this wouldn’t be the case for most people, but i remember looking at maps of central american countries with my father when i was in 7th grade, as he determined the catchment areas of rural health posts. the broad street pump was practically a bedtime story. in fifth grade, i made a presentation to my class on contraceptive methods, much to my language arts teacher’s dismay. imagine explaining vaginal suppositories to your teacher when you’re ten years old…)

the mph was “worth it” in the sense that i completed my coursework while working full time, and saw a satisfying bump in my income. but it didn’t do much to change the way i looked at the world, or analyzed problems. it was really just academic and professional recognition of something i already knew.

the jd on the other hand – now that is a completely different story.

i went to law school – several years after earning my mph – simply because i could. i scored well on the LSATs; international trade law and health law issues were directly pertinent to my work, and unlike public health, it was not something i could learn from my parents or on the job. i never had any interest in practicing law in the courtroom or for a firm. i just wanted the additional analytical tools. and from that perspective, earning the jd was definitely “worth it.” i loved law school. i didn’t have much exposure to the socratic method, but it was thrilling in the classes where the professor used it. hypos were essentially big puzzles to which case law, statutes, and regulations could be applied – fitting the pieces together to determine possible answers. i learned more about the u.s. government than i had before (growing up overseas and having a narrow academic interest in college can stunt one’s civics education), and my appreciation and respect for the rights and responsibilities of individuals grew enormously, challenging my generally-unquestioned collectivist public health mindset. my public health positions have been somewhat altered by my legal education, both reinforcing some beliefs and leading me to question and reject others. i think these are all good things.

i “am” an mph jd in the sense that those letters come after my name on my business cards. i currently work for an organization whose primary focus is the law, and in an issue area that happens to be health (but not public health as its usually construed). when i read the newspaper, i naturally gravitate toward health and law reporting in areas that interest me, and i think i’m more likely to question assumptions i come across than i was before my degrees. but the mph/jd doesn’t define all of me. a quick search through this blog gives a much better picture of who i “am” than five letters on cardstock, or the diplomas gathering dust at the back of my closet.

i’ve found many benefits to having an mph/jd, and given the opportunity, i would likely do it again. one drawback, though, is that i’ve educated myself out of the type of jobs (and beyond the expected income level) that i like – at least for the moment. i’m an analyst at heart. show me a forest, and i’ll start cataloguing the trees and wildlife, and developing theories about pretty much anything i’m asked about. the big picture – the policy decisions, the strategic planning, the long-term outlook – these are things in which i have no particular interest. if i agree with them, i’ll happily work to support them, but i’d rather leave the development to someone else.

so there you go. a more introspective post than i’ve written in some time. and it probably won’t help the person who originally posed the question one bit. because what “worth it” and “be” mean to me may be entirely different than what they mean to him or her.

ecuador’s 2008 constitution has a governmental guarantee of sustainable development. the whole section on the environment is fascinating. (there’s also an interesting article in the post that leads one to question just how involved a spanish consulting group was in drafting the document.)

(with audio book sales)

g is getting a kindle 2 for his birthday, or the ides of march, or whenever it shows up. i’m not letting the cat out of the bag by posting this; he knows i ordered it for him before xmas, and the order’s been languishing in amazon’s no-stock purgatory for months. and although infinite jest isn’t yet available for the e-book reader, i think it’s still a pretty useful gadget.

version 2 has a number of improvements and changes from version 1, including the ability to “read” the book out loud. a great boon for people with poor eyesight (like g’s grandmother), or people who want the book along for road trips. but the authors guild is apparently up in arms about it, arguing that the reader function violates the author’s copyright and erodes the market for audio books.

they’re morons. (and the EFF points out the real absurdity of their arguments.)

for one thing, once i have an authorized copy of a work, i can do pretty much what i want with it. i can have it fitted nasally. i can use it as a dog toy. i can even *gasp* read it out loud to the mice living under the dishwasher! (that’s a topic for another post.)

but let me see: if i could choose between (picking a book at random, here) the graveyard book being read by author neil gaiman, or the same book read by the kindle’s robotic voice, which would i pick? that’s a no-brainer – i’d go with neil. (and i happily will still go with neil, as he’s sensibly against the guild’s infringement stance.)

another thing: i’d be very surprised to learn that every book available for the kindle is also available in audiobook. (infinite jest, for example, isn’t available in either format.) picking a book at random – kerouac’s on the road (original scroll edition) is available for the kindle, and… oh, okay, i’ll pick another one. beverly cleary’s beezus and ramona is available for the kindle… no, that’s available in audiobook as well. hmm. how about terhune’s lad: a dog? okay not available for the kindle, or in audiobook. trying again… anthony beevor’s the battle for spain: the spanish civil war 1936-1939 is available for the kindle, but is not available in audiobook form.

i rest my case.

but seriously. copyright infringement? eroding the market for the audiobooks? please. it almost might be worth tracking down the authors who agree with the guild and boycotting their works in any form.

almost two years ago, a good friend and mentor died of pancreatic cancer. she’d managed to beat the odds for awhile, enrolling in a treatment study out of california that seemed to knock the tumors back and raise the possibility that she’d be able to get a whipple that, it was hoped, could extend her life. in the end she didn’t, but at least she was able to leave on her own terms, in her own house, with her family around her.

and now wapo is telling me that ruth bader ginsburg, author of one of the most well-mannered tongue-lashing dissents¹ i’ve had the pleasure to read, lone remaining woman on the supreme court, has been hospitalized with the same disease. it appears the cancer was caught early, and she’s undergone surgery (although what type is unclear). but still. it’s an ugly cancer, and has a very poor prognosis.

i hate pancreatic cancer.

###

in related news, obama is apparently trying to reframe the abortion debate. or, perhaps as the wapo put it, “appease both sides.” (yeah, like he tried to appease the house republicans by persuading the dems to drop a number of provisions in the stimulus bill, including expanded access to contraception for poor women? and how did that work out for him?) he seems to be trying to walk the “reduce unwanted pregnancies” tightrope with the establishment of a white house office on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships², but i’m wondering if he realizes that the antiabortion side also trends heavily toward anticontraception as well? if he starts pushing abstinence education as part of his agenda, i’m going to hurl.

___________________________
¹ gonzalez v. carhart. it should be required reading for anyone concerned about how the supreme court has consistently eroded abortion rights since roe.

The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women’s health. Today’s ruling, the Court declares, advances “a premise central to [Casey’s] conclusion”—i.e.,the Government’s “legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.” Ante, at 14. See also ante, at 15 (“[W]e must determine whether the Act furthers the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.”). But the Act scarcely furthers that interest: The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion. See Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 930. And surely the statute was not designed to protect the lives or health of pregnant women. Id., at 951 (Ginsburg, J., concurring);cf. Casey, 505 U. S., at 846 (recognizing along with the State’s legitimate interest in the life of the fetus, its “legitimate interes[t] … in protecting the health of the woman” (emphasis added)). In short, the Court upholds a law that, while doing nothing to “preserv[e] … fetal life,” ante, at 14, bars a woman from choosing intact D&E although her doctor “reasonably believes [that procedure] will best protect [her].” Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 946 (Stevens, J., concurring).

² headed by a 26-year-old, no less. wtf?

many other, more erudite sources around the web have pointed out the problems with the media’s scapegoating of the black voter population (which i perpetuated in my post below), so i’ll just link to them rather than replaying all the arguments here.

the moderate voice links to and reprints a portion of the message from kathryn kolbert, president of people for the american way;

a post on dailykos goes after CNN’s sampling methodology among other things (i don’t agree with all of the assertions, but it’s worth the read);

and raymond leon roker at huffpo has even more.

now, that said, if CNN’s sample was correct as to distribution of the black vote (if not the overall percentage of the vote that was cast by black residents of california), it does beg the question as to why 70% of california’s black voters cast a ballot in favor of prop 8. andrew sullivan links to more.

and what of the mormon support? apparently the LDS church pulled out all the stops in supporting prop 8. an LA times op-ed piece looks at the mormons’ own history of non-traditional marriages, opining that “there is no religious group in our country that should be more tolerant of “nontraditional” forms of marriage than those of us whose ancestors were polygamist Mormons, who were persecuted because of their “nontraditional” marriages.”

oh well.

the CT supreme court just ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry. w00t! along with MA and CA, that makes three.

according to the ncsl, there are only five states without laws prohibiting same-sex marriage: MA, NJ, NM, NY and RI (you go, ocean state).

earlier this year, the governor of new york directed the state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions where it is legal.

just my attempt to find some end-of-week cheer in a world where the economy is in free fall, and in a country where a presidential candidate has stooped to disgusting lows and stokes a climate of rage and violence.

hey, look! kittens!

In response to judges who say they see too many people in their courtrooms because of undiagnosed mental disorders, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty cut the ribbon to an urgent-care clinic at the D.C. Superior Court building yesterday.

mental health and legal issues often go hand in hand, as any forensic psychiatrist – or defense attorney – will tell you. there’s an american academy of psychiatry and the law, founded by psychiatrists, as well as a number of law and psychiatry programs in law schools around the country. but as far as i know, this is the first mental health clinic in a courthouse. according to the chief clinical officer at the dc department of mental health,

“there seems to be a lot of mentally ill people who were being arrested for quality-of-life crimes like open containers, aggressive panhandling and trespassing.

“They can either go to jail or go to treatment,” he said, adding that of the 146 people who have been treated, 110 were homeless, 60 people were given a community mental health provider and eight were referred to an emergency psychiatric facility.

30 years on, we’re still dealing with reagan’s legacy.