Missouri Lawmaker Seeks To Block Students From Studying Restrictive Abortion Law

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

A state lawmaker wants to stop a graduate student at the University of Missouri from continuing research for her dissertation on the impact of a 72-hour waiting period on women considering abortions.

Missouri state Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) claimed in a letter to the university chancellor dated Oct. 30 that the university is breaking the law by allowing the student to carry out her research. The grad student is studying a recently imposed law requiring women in Missouri to wait 72 hours between the time they seek information about an abortion and the point at which they have the procedure.

It's the latest in an ongoing battle between state lawmakers and the university over its relationship to Planned Parenthood. A decision by the university in September to cancel 10 contracts with Planned Parenthood helped fuel recent protests on campus that led to the ouster of the university system's president and the flagship campus' chancellor.

Schaefer is chairman of the Missouri senate's interim Committee on the Sanctity of Life and a GOP candidate for state attorney general. The state senate began investigating Mizzou's ties to Planned Parenthood this year after an anti-abortion group released heavily edited videos purporting to show that the women's health clinics were selling aborted fetal tissue. No evidence has emerged to prove this assertion; rather, some Planned Parenthood clinics request the reimbursement for the cost of delivering tissue to be used for medical research.

The university canceled 10 contracts with Planned Parenthood in September amid the investigation. That eliminated the opportunity for medical students to do clinical rotations that would help them learn how to provide surgical abortions and place long-acting contraception methods. The university's nursing school later signed agreements with two Planned Parenthood clinics in October that included clauses prohibiting students from helping provide abortions.

The graduate student's research, Schaefer insists, is a "marketing aid" for Planned Parenthood using taxpayer dollars. Missouri law prohibits state employees from using tax dollars to encourage a woman to have an abortion that is "not necessary to save her life." But defenders of the study say Schaefer's suggestion the school shouldn't be able to conduct this research is a threat to academic freedom.

The university is "well aware" of the law forbidding tax dollars to be used for encouraging abortions, MU spokeswoman Mary Jo Banken said, but that's not what the student is doing -- and she does not receive any scholarships or grant money from the university anyway.

"As the state's research, land-grant institution, we must stay committed to the discovery, dissemination, application and preservation of knowledge to support our mission while abiding by state and federal laws," Banken said in a statement. "We will continue performing life-saving research in our laboratories while providing the highest quality of educational opportunities to our students."

The study was approved by the university's institutional review board, a standard procedure for any research involving human subjects. According to university sources, there was no pushback from the IRB, and no funding from the university is going into the study.

Part of Schaefer's complaint about the 72-hour waiting period study is that the student's supervisor, Marjorie Sable, is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Board of Directors. The grad student is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social Work, of which Sable is a director.

"It is difficult to understand how a research study approved by the University, conducted by a University student, and over seen by the Director of the School of Social Work at the University can be perceived as anything but an expenditure of public funds to aid in Planned Parenthood in improving 'its services to better meet the needs of women seeking abortions' in clear violation of Missouri law," Schaefer wrote.

However, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri is calling on the university to "remain stalwart in the face of political interference with academic freedom."

Laura McQuade, president and CEO of the regional office, said in a statement that Mizzou's chancellor should "act in the interest of students and his community, not politicians advancing their careers at MU's expense."

A liberal group, Progress Missouri, has also circulated a video showing the lawmaker stating multiple times while in office that "academic decisions should be made by academics ... not by politicians."

Schaefer did not respond to multiple requests for comment. He demanded documents and emails relating to the study to be turned over to his office by Nov. 6.

Original letter at thelink.

This seems like a rather broad interpretation of the relevant statute to me, and is most assuredly a violation of academic freedom. I also have to dispute the notion that a graduate student's dissertation could be regarded as a marketing aid, given that the only people that ever read them are the student and the professors sitting on the student's review board. I suppose in this case some people on Planned Parenthood's staff might also be interested, but its hardly something that's going to be used for public consumption.

**Kilkrazy**

One suspects that the anti-abortion lawmaker is afraid that the dissertation will find out some disturbing facts that might argue the case for anti-anti-abortion, and is grasping at straws to prevent this imagined danger from arising.

However as you say, it is a clear attack on academic freedom.

I was startled also to see that the medical students are no longer allowed to study abortions. If this sort of thing is allowed to carry on, we only need Jehovah's Witnesses to get into power and blood transfusions will be banned.

**Peregrine**

Welcome to conservative science. If science doesn't tell us what conservative ideology wants to hear then it isn't legitimate science and must be suppressed. Scientists need to know their place and only do work that is politically convenient for the republican party and its financial supporters.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
One suspects that the anti-abortion lawmaker is afraid that the dissertation will find out some disturbing facts that might argue the case for anti-anti-abortion, and is grasping at straws to prevent this imagined danger from arising.

However as you say, it is a clear attack on academic freedom.

I was startled also to see that the medical students are no longer allowed to study abortions. If this sort of thing is allowed to carry on, we only need Jehovah's Witnesses to get into power and blood transfusions will be banned.

one suspects the lawmaker graduated from Imadumass University.

**Jihadin**

Part of Schaefer's complaint about the 72-hour waiting period study is that the student's supervisor, Marjorie Sable, is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Board of Directors. The grad student is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social Work, of which Sable is a director.

That does stand out. Is the student doing it on her own or receiving help. The visual alone is "iffy" on her final grade/whatever her paper receives

**Frazzled**

Dude its the School of Social Work. They burn conservatives alive there.

My wife was one until she got a job with the PoPo. Nothing will change your optimistic view of humanity like working with child survivors...

**Gwaihirsbrother**

I'm against abortion, but the student should be allowed to pursue her inquiry. If the results are contrary to one's viewpoint attack her flawed methodology or whatever problem the study has, if any.

**dogma**

Jihadin wrote:

That does stand out. Is the student doing it on her own or receiving help. The visual alone is "iffy" on her final grade/whatever her paper receives

It is the adviser's job to help the student construct their dissertation, and assist in deciding when it is ready for final review. This is part of why dissertations aren't actually graded in the traditional sense, but assessed more like journal articles. Basically the student's work is either accepted, given a revise and resubmit, or rejected; with rejection only occurring if something in the student/adviser relationship has gone seriously awry.

One other thing to bear in mind is that the adviser often has no say in the final assessment of the student's work. Rather judgment is passed by an unrelated single or double blind panel.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
one suspects the lawmaker graduated from Imadumass University.

I had a lot more to say but this seemed to sum it up succinctly.

**H.B.M.C.**

I think it's amazing how much of a big deal this remains in America. Why is so much effort, time and worst of all money put into blocking abortion (or even just research from a student, FFS). Have you people got nothing more important to worry about?

Peregrine wrote:
Welcome to conservative science. If science doesn't tell us what conservative ideology wants to hear then it isn't legitimate science and must be suppressed. Scientists need to know their place and only do work that is politically convenient for the republican party and its financial supporters.

Yup. 'Cause that only ever happens on the Right. The other side never has biases or agendas. Sure.

**Peregrine**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yup. 'Cause that only ever happens on the Right. The other side never has biases or agendas. Sure.

Not in US politics it doesn't. Not like this.

**Hordini**

Peregrine wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yup. 'Cause that only ever happens on the Right. The other side never has biases or agendas. Sure.

Not in US politics it doesn't. Not like this.

You're right. It's not like there are any other issues in which the left presents wildly inaccurate or biased information.

**Peregrine**

Hordini wrote:
You're right. It's not like there are any other issues in which the left presents wildly inaccurate or biased information.

Do you have any examples of the left trying to suppress research like this, just because it might come to an inconvenient conclusion?

**Hordini**

Peregrine wrote:
Hordini wrote:
You're right. It's not like there are any other issues in which the left presents wildly inaccurate or biased information.

Do you have any examples of the left trying to suppress research like this, just because it might come to an inconvenient conclusion?

Suppressing research at a university, no. But presenting wildly inaccurate or biased information, yes.

Although with all the "safe space" nonsense going on at some universities, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened before too long.

**d-usa**

Hordini wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Welcome to conservative science. If science doesn't tell us what conservative ideology wants to hear then it isn't legitimate science and must be suppressed. Scientists need to know their place and only do work that is politically convenient for the republican party and its financial supporters.
Yup. 'Cause that only ever happens on the Right. The other side never has biases or agendas. Sure.

Not in US politics it doesn't. Not like this.

You're right. It's not like there are any other issues in which the left presents wildly inaccurate or biased information.

Do you have any examples of the left trying to suppress research like this, just because it might come to an inconvenient conclusion?

Suppressing research at a university, no. But presenting wildly inaccurate or biased information, yes.

Although with all the "safe space" nonsense going on at some universities, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened before too long.

Highlighted the relevant portions for you.

**Hordini**

I feel like you're constructing a straw man on my behalf, when I was very clear what I was talking about.

**FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs**

Well at least the new law won't hold up because of the RFRA and the satanic temple. Got to love "religious freedom" being thrown back in people's faces.

**Hordini**

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Well at least the new law won't hold up because of the RFRA and the satanic temple. Got to love "religious freedom" being thrown back in people's faces.

I agree! I seem to recall you were pretty butthurt when it happened to you as well. Isn't freedom nice?

**SagesStone**

Politicians are paid to exaggerate points based on their backers ideology. Some excel at this art through stupidity in one way or another regardless of which way they lean.

**LordofHats**

It's a state legislature.

They spend most of their time passing absurd laws and insane ideas. They're the opposite of Congress. One spends all it's time debating ideology while passing nothing that works, and the other passes ideology as law and pretends it works (When they're not being totally outrageos)