I agree with Stephen. This law in South Dakota is clealy using the framing/anchoring/availability heuristics to be persuasive. Those opposing the law should lobby to have the facts regarding reproductive rights and choice included after these sets of "information".
Bill Scott >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/24/08 10:11 PM >>> Or: pushing the envelope on "informed consent" (There I go again with the scare quotes). I was horrified by this draconian law in the land of the (formerly) free. One might expect a country like Iran, say, to pass such a measure compelling adherence to ideologically and religiously- driven beliefs, together with the promotion of false information in the guise of scientific. But in the USA? See: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/21/2189 and then see: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0809669v1 (I apologize for apparently bringing the abortion debate to TIPS, where it does not belong. But it seems to me that such a law raises questions beyond that issue concerning the right of the state to interfere in the professional relationship between qualified therapist and patient, and to impose a particular view by misrepresenting scientific evidence. It could be psychology or biology that gets it next. Sorry--I think they already have.) Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
