« More on United | Main | A Question »

David Hager

No time now to say more, but you're going to want to read this eye-popping story from my colleague and good friend Ayelish McGarvey.

UPDATE: See further comments and background from Chris Mooney and in today's Washington Post. Here's the Post's story:

Soon after the Food and Drug Administration overruled its advisory panel last year and rejected an application to make an emergency contraceptive more easily available, critics of the agency said it had ignored scientific evidence and yielded to pressure from social conservatives.

The agency denied the charge, but an outspoken evangelical conservative doctor on the panel subsequently acknowledged in a previously unreported public sermon that he was asked to write a memo to the FDA commissioner soon after the panel voted 23 to 4 in favor of over-the-counter sales of the contraceptive, called Plan B. He said he believes his memo played a central role in the rejection of that recommendation.

The new information comes from a videotaped sermon in October by W. David Hager. On the tape, he said he was asked to write a "minority report" that would outline why over-the-counter sales should be rejected. . . .

The videotape of Hager's sermon was first obtained by the magazine the Nation, which published a story about the doctor today.

In an e-mail to The Washington Post, Hager said the request for the report came from "outside the agency," but he had previously told two other journalists -- in one case in an e-mail that the recipient saved -- that the request came from an FDA staff member.

So, you see, he's a liar, among other things. And here's McGarvey's story in The Nation:
Up on the dais, several men seated behind Hager nodded solemnly in agreement. But out in the audience, Linda Carruth Davis--co-author with Hager of Stress and the Woman's Body, and, more saliently, his former wife of thirty-two years--was enraged. "It was the most disgusting thing I've ever heard," she recalled months later, through clenched teeth

According to Davis, Hager's public moralizing on sexual matters clashed with his deplorable treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible." . . .

Back in Lexington, where the couple continued to live, Linda Hager, as she was still known at the time, was sinking into a deep depression, she says. Though her marriage had been dead for nearly a decade, she could not see her way clear to divorce; she had no money of her own and few marketable skills. But life with David Hager had grown unbearable. As his public profile increased, so did the tension in their home, which she says periodically triggered episodes of abuse. "I would be asleep," she recalls, "and since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off.... I would [confront] David later, and he would say, 'You asked me to do that,' and I would say, 'No, I never asked for it.'" . . .

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. . . .

For Davis, the diagnosis spelled relief, and a physician placed her on several medications to attain "sleep hygiene," or a consistent sleep pattern. But Davis says it was after the diagnosis that the period of the most severe abuse began. 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. "My sense is that he saw [my narcolepsy] as an opportunity," Davis surmises. Sometimes she fought Hager off and he would quit for a while, only to circle back later that same night; at other times, "the most expedient thing was to try and somehow get it [over with]. In order to keep any peace, I had to maintain the illusion of being available to him." At still other moments, she says, she attempted to avoid Hager's predatory advances in various ways--for example, by sleeping in other rooms in the house, or by struggling to stay awake until Hager was in a deep sleep himself. But, she says, nothing worked. One of Davis's lifelong confidantes remembers when Davis first told her about the abuse. "[Linda] was very angry and shaken," she recalled. . . .

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. In Kentucky a person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person by "forcible compulsion"; or when the victim is incapable of consent because she is physically helpless. The same standards apply to the crime of sodomy in the first degree (equivalent to rape, and distinct from consensual sodomy). Both are felonies. . . .

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. Some may argue that this is just a personal matter between a man and his former wife--a simple case of "he said, she said" with no public implications. That might be so--if there were no allegations of criminal conduct, if the alleged conduct did not bear any relevance to the public responsibilities of the person in question, and if the allegations themselves were not credible and independently corroborated. But given that this case fails all of those tests, 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.

And there you have it. To be as clear as possible, what we've got here is criminal conduct, not a "sex scandal." Breaking the law is never a private matter, especially when it's this sort of criminal conduct and the perpetrator has these kind of public responsibilities.


May 12, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83423287a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference David Hager:

» Dr. Hager, Advisor to the FDA from Maternal
W. David Hager, MD, sits on the FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. He was a dissenting vote when this panel voted 23-4 to approve the 'Plan B' emergency contraceptive. He [Read More]

Tracked on May 12, 2005 12:57:29 PM

» Okay, now this is horrible from Master of My Domain
Okay, maybe letting the Republicans get what they want wasn't such a hot idea... [Read More]

Tracked on May 12, 2005 1:00:43 PM

Comments

Jesus, Mary and Joseph. A shocking and sad read. Note that Bev LaHaye stands beside Hager.

Posted by: deckko | May 12, 2005 9:07:07 AM

Wow, just a tremendously good article.

Posted by: Scott Lemieux | May 12, 2005 9:34:25 AM

Whoa. That's f'd up.

Posted by: JP | May 12, 2005 9:43:43 AM

What do Democrats have against sodomy?

Posted by: Al | May 12, 2005 9:55:22 AM

"what we've got here is criminal conduct"

No brief for the crazy christian doctor, but it's still he said/ she (and her friends) said at this stage. Allegations of criminal conduct should be tested in court and the former wife should be expected to pursue this option if her claims are to be thought credible and defensible.

Posted by: otto | May 12, 2005 10:09:17 AM

To be as clear as possible, what we've got here is criminal conduct, not a "sex scandal." Breaking the law is never a private matter, especially when it's this sort of criminal conduct and the perpetrator has these kind of public responsibilities.

Where were you in 1998?

Posted by: REAL Al | May 12, 2005 10:15:11 AM

The question is, where are you now, Al?

Posted by: neil | May 12, 2005 10:20:24 AM

Al wants to know where MY was in 1998. I want to know where MY is now. I mean, we log into this blog day after day to listen to a 25 year old kid outta Harvard pontificate on whatever the topic of the day is or pointing to someone else's piece, but how come he isn't *generating* news with some old-fashioned reporting like his friend did with this story? Methinks MY has got to decide if he's a journalist or a pundit sometime soon. He averages a half-dozen posts a day, but that's too much: I'd accept 1-2 a day if it meant the time saved was spent out there pounding the pavement or working the phones?

Posted by: Some Pseudonym | May 12, 2005 10:30:41 AM

Their obsession with others' sex lives makes a lot more sense, now, doesn't it? It doesn't even occur to them that people who believe in sexual privacy could be, well, normal, because they're so warped themselves.

Posted by: latts | May 12, 2005 10:36:28 AM

Holy shit.

Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh | May 12, 2005 10:40:48 AM

"What do Democrats have against sodomy?"

Why do Republicans have such a difficult time making rather crucial moral distinctions between consensual and non-consensual sex?

Posted by: Scott Lemieux | May 12, 2005 10:43:54 AM

Al is objectively pro-rape.

Posted by: JP | May 12, 2005 10:46:57 AM

Some Pseudonym says: ...we log into this blog day after day to listen to a 25 year old kid outta Harvard pontificate...

Maybe you are logging into the wrong site. I log onto this site to read an educated, clear thinking person provide his insight and opinion about topics of his choice. It is his blog - if you don't like MY's blog, why punish yourself, Some Pseudonym ?

And why punish other readers having to read you 'pontificate' about the blog in a a childish ad hominem manner.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 12, 2005 10:48:57 AM

Non-consensual for ... seven years? Uh-huh. Seems dubious to me. But I guess if you hate the Bush Administration enough, you'll believe anything.

Posted by: Al | May 12, 2005 10:51:06 AM

Not only does MY have to decide whether he's a journalist or a pundit, but I have to decide whether I'm in fact a guy with a boring office job or a dedicated blog reader and comment writer. So many decisions!

Posted by: Tom | May 12, 2005 10:53:23 AM

Who's had the most kink-meisters surrounding his presidency? Kennedy? Clinton? Bush? Other?

Posted by: ferd | May 12, 2005 11:30:40 AM

"Non-consensual for ... seven years? Uh-huh. Seems dubious to me. But I guess if you hate the Bush Administration enough, you'll believe anything."

People stay in physically abusive marriages for decades, sometimes. The article states that she felt completely financially dependent on her husband, her friends were of the "You made your bed, now lie in it," mindset, and she was committed to her marriage. I don't find it hard to believe at all.

Posted by: Emily | May 12, 2005 11:41:03 AM

For David Hager, 'Plan B' obviously meant something quite different.

Posted by: ahem | May 12, 2005 11:46:17 AM

Uh-huh. Seems dubious to me.

Gosh, I hope that you wake up one day, Al, and your first thought is 'Where's the Preparation H'. Dumbest. Fuckwit. Ever.

Posted by: ahem | May 12, 2005 11:47:21 AM

Women can't be raped by their husbands. If they don't want to have sex they can get a divorce.

Posted by: Al | May 12, 2005 11:52:14 AM

My prediction on the spin: Even if he's guilty of everything described in the article, the really serious moral problem is that someone would try to smear him.

I agree that she should probably bring this to court, but I find it disheartening that one of the first comments on this is to blame the (allegedly) sexually abused woman for putting herself in that situation. It's always the woman's fault for some people.

Posted by: Adam Kotsko | May 12, 2005 11:54:30 AM

Women can't be raped by their husbands.

I guess if you love Bush enough, you can believe anything.

Posted by: neil | May 12, 2005 11:57:27 AM

With a record like that, why are David Hager 's talents being wasted in the FDA? He's clearly more suited for something like U.N. ambassador.

Posted by: jlw | May 12, 2005 11:59:19 AM

People stay in physically abusive marriages for decades, sometimes. The article states that she felt completely financially dependent on her husband, her friends were of the "You made your bed, now lie in it," mindset, and she was committed to her marriage. I don't find it hard to believe at all.

I'm not saying it's impossible. Nevertheless, the fact that she stayed in the relationship for so long certainly undercuts her credibility. As does the fact that she never pressed charges after the relationship was over.

Nonetheless, if the guy did it, he should be criticized for it. But it hardly seems like a big deal in the bigger scheme of government - I mean, this guy is a member of an FDA advisory panel. He's not, you know, the President of the United States, like someone else who was involved in "criminal conduct," not a "sex scandal," back in the 1990s. But at least I'm glad that Democrats are now taking the position that breaking the law is never a private matter, especially when the perpetrator has public responsibilities. Because it really shows how hypocritical they really are.

Posted by: Al | May 12, 2005 12:01:24 PM

Women can't be raped by their husbands. If they don't want to have sex they can get a divorce.


Screw you Stalker.

Posted by: Al | May 12, 2005 12:03:33 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.