Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Hi Frank – I commend you for even attempting to engage with this troglodyte, but he's proven himself, time and time again, to be a bad faith debater who's not worth more than one or two responses on any contested point.

Here's a good way to change your use of caps for emphasis – just remember that Trump does it! You can use italics or boldface, but really, your thinking is precise enough and your logic is clear enough so any inability to absorb the facts you present reveals a either a defect in cognition or willful incomprehension. Anyone who follows your conversations with this guy feels a similar sense of exasperation and mentally capitalizes your points anyway!

Reading his posts is somewhat akin to gawking at a car accident.

Caitlin Bernard is listed as a ‘threat’ by an Indiana-based antiabortion group with ties to Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett

The Indianapolis doctor who helped a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim obtain an abortion was forced to stop offering services at a clinic in 2020 after she was alerted of a kidnapping threat against her daughter.

And she is currently listed as a “threat” on an antiabortion website that was linked to Amy Coney Barrett before she was nominated to the Supreme Court and helped overturn Roe v. Wade.

Before the story went viral and an Ohio man was charged with rape in a case that has captured international attention, Caitlin Bernard, an OB/GYN, was forced to stop providing abortion services at a clinic in South Bend, Ind., in 2020 after Planned Parenthood alerted her about a kidnapping threat made against the doctor’s daughter that was passed along by the FBI.

“I felt it would be best for me to limit my travel and exposure during that time,” Bernard said in sworn testimony last year, according to the Guardian, the first to report the news. “I was concerned that there may be people who would be able to identify me during that travel, as well as it’s a very small clinic without any privacy for the people who are driving in and out, and so therefore, people could directly see me.”

Kendra Barkoff Lamy, a spokesperson for Bernard, confirmed to The Washington Post on Saturday that “reports regarding threats against Dr. Bernard’s family in 2020 are sadly true.”

“These personal and dangerous threats are obviously devastating to her, a board-certified doctor who has dedicated her life to the betterment of women and providing crucial reproductive care, including abortions,” Lamy said in a statement. “Sadly, Dr. Bernard is not alone, and this happens to doctors like her who provide abortions across our nation.”

Neither officials with Planned Parenthood nor the FBI immediately responded to requests for comment early Saturday. Rebecca Gibron, the acting CEO of several Planned Parenthood branches, including Indiana, said in a news release that the organization “has committed to providing Dr. Bernard with security services and assistance with legal fees.”

“We stand in solidarity with Dr. Bernard and all providers who continue to deliver compassionate, essential care to patients, even in the face of attacks from antiabortion extremists,” Gibron said.

While the details surrounding the reported kidnapping threat remain unclear, Bernard has been labeled a “local abortion threat” on a website for Right to Life Michiana, an antiabortion group based in South Bend. Bernard is among six doctors who have their workplace locations and educational backgrounds listed since at least last year on a section of the website called “Local Abortion Threat: The Abortionist.” Bernard and the other doctors were still listed on the website as of Saturday.

Jackie Appleman, executive director of Right to Life Michiana, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday. Appleman told the Guardian earlier this year that listing Bernard and the other doctors on the group’s website was based on “publicly available information.”

“Right to Life Michiana does not condone or encourage harm, threats or harassment towards anyone, including abortion doctors, abortion business employees and escorts,” Appleman said in January. “We encourage pro-choice groups to also accept our nonviolent approach when it comes to the unborn.”

Right to Life Michiana takes a hard-line antiabortion stance, and Appleman has previously noted that the group supports the criminalization of doctors who perform abortions. The group promotes misinformation about pregnancy and abortion on its website, including the false claim that medical abortions can be “reversed.” Right to Life Michiana touts several sponsors on its website, including the University of Notre Dame, which is in South Bend, and the organization is promoting a fall event with conservative firebrand Ben Shapiro as the keynote speaker.

But the antiabortion group is perhaps best known for a 2006 newspaper advertisement opposing “abortion on demand” that was signed by Barrett when she was a law professor at Notre Dame — an endorsement that appeared to be her first direct public expression regarding her views on abortion.

“We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death,” St. Joseph County Right to Life, which later renamed to Right to Life Michiana, said in the advertisement published in the South Bend Tribune. “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children.”

The group’s advocacy work came under broader scrutiny during Barrett’s confirmation process to the Supreme Court in 2020 when it was revealed that she failed to disclose her participation in the ad.
[...]
News of the previous threat against Bernard’s daughter has cast a spotlight on potential violence and criminal incidents against providers and patients. Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, nearly 500 assaults, 42 bombings, 196 arsons, and thousands of criminal incidents directed at patients, providers, and volunteers, according to the National Abortion Federation, which advocates for abortion access. According to its most recent threat assessment report released in May, last year saw a 600 percent increase in incidents of stalking abortion providers and a 163 percent increase in the delivery of hoax or suspicious packages compared to 2020.

Lamy told The Post on Saturday that Bernard is asking “for respect for her family’s privacy.” Bernard took to Twitter on Friday evening to express her gratitude for the support during what she called “a difficult week,” and vowed to “continue to provide health care ethically, lovingly, and bravely each and every day.”

“I hope to be able to share my story soon,” Bernard said.

The same four factors that explain how people change their beliefs on a variety of issues can account for the recent rise in anti-science attitudes, a new review suggests.

But politics in modern society have amplified how those factors work, making them a potent force in the growing rejection of science.

In a paper published today (July 11, 2022) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, three researchers who study attitudes and persuasion explain the rise in anti-science beliefs today and what can be done about it.

“The classic work on persuasion still applies to what we’re seeing today as many people reject the science of vaccines, climate change and other subjects,” said Aviva Philipp-Muller, lead author of the paper. “But there are evidence-based strategies that can work for increasing public acceptance of science.”

Aviva Philipp-MullerPhilipp-Muller, who did the work as a doctoral student in psychology at The Ohio State University, is now an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University.

Anti-science beliefs are built on four foundations, or bases, the authors said. These foundations are: thinking scientific sources lack credibility; identifying with groups that have anti-science attitudes; a scientific message that contradicts a person’s current beliefs; and a mismatch between how a message is presented and a person’s style of thinking.

“What all four of these bases have in common is they reveal what happens when scientific information conflicts with what people already think or their style of thought,” said co-author Richard Petty, professor of psychology at Ohio State.

“These kinds of conflict are hard for people to handle, and that makes it easier for them to just reject scientific information that doesn’t already fit into what they believe.”

While these foundations can explain why people reject science, there has been a marked increase in anti-science attitudes in the past decades, the authors said.

Petty said he has been particularly struck by the sudden growth of anti-vaccination advocates in the United States and elsewhere.

“Vaccinations used to be a standard thing that everyone accepted. But there have been a few developments in recent years that have made it easier to persuade people against the scientific consensus on vaccinations and other issues,” he said.

One, of course, is the rise of social media and a variety of news sources where people can get their own version of the facts.

But the authors point to another related development: the growing importance of political ideology in the modern world.

Richard Petty“Politics were always around, and people had political views, but politics didn’t permeate everything. Science and scientific beliefs were separate from politics at one time, but not anymore,” Petty said.

And because politics today are a core part of people’s identity, ideology affects how they react to scientific evidence that has been politicized, such as climate change.

“Some people may reject new scientific information because it is easier to do that than overturn their pre-existing political beliefs,” Philipp-Muller said.

Politics can trigger or amplify basic mental processes across all four bases of anti-science attitudes, Philipp-Muller said.

For example, take source credibility. Research shows that people see others with similar political views as more expert and knowledgeable. Because liberals and conservatives find different news sources credible, they expose themselves to different sources of scientific information – and misinformation.

“Social media platforms like Facebook provide customized news feeds that means conservatives and liberals can get highly varied information,” Philipp-Muller said.

Research on attitudes and persuasion shows how to address some of the key principles that drive anti-science attitudes, according to the authors.

One way to counteract anti-science attitudes, for example, is to convey messages that show an understanding of other viewpoints.

“Pro-science messages can acknowledge that there are valid concerns on the other side, but explain why the scientific position is preferable,” Philipp-Muller said.

For example, messages on preventing the spread of COVID-19 can acknowledge that wearing masks can be uncomfortable, but explain the discomfort is worth it to prevent the spread of disease.

Another key is to find common ground with people who reject science – even if what you have in common has nothing to do with science.

“People get their defenses up if they think they are being attacked or that you’re so different from them that you can’t be credible,” Petty said. “Find some places where you agree and work from there.”

Petty and Philipp-Muller said they hope more scientists learn about the psychology of how to communicate about their work to the public.

“It’s often not enough just to present a simple and accurate message,” Petty said.

“Psychological research can help scientists learn to present their work to different kinds of audiences, including those who might be skeptical.”

Philipp-Muller added: “There’s an opportunity to counteract the anti-science attitudes and sentiment that is out there. We have to use evidence-based strategies to increase public acceptance of science.”

Trained police officers with body armour and assault rifles didn't want to engage a shooter with an AR-15, but Republican lawmakers expect armed teachers with handguns to do it.