Power

Sen. Dan Patrick’s Medical Records Aren’t Subjects for Debate

When it comes to voting decisions, the fact that Dan Patrick has sought help to treat mental illness is irrelevant. Yet many progressive supporters are still gleefully sharing his records.

When it comes to voting decisions, the fact that Dan Patrick has sought help to treat mental illness is irrelevant. Yet many progressive supporters are still gleefully sharing his records. KERAPublicMedia via YouTube

As the November election grows closer, the medical records of Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick, the Republican radio show host running for lieutenant governor against Democratic state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, have been making the rounds on social media. As a feminist and a progressive, I am appalled by the apparent willingness of others in the movement to share something incredibly personal as so-called evidence that Sen. Patrick is unfit to run for higher office, and by the justification that his right-wing politics excuse any and all efforts at making a mockery of his health history.

I believe that people’s private medical decisions belong to no one but themselves, their doctors, and their loved ones. I believe that no one has a right to know what care or interventions other people choose for themselves.

This line of thinking forms the very foundation of my feminism. Bodily autonomy is not, and can never be, a reality without an individual right to privacy. And it’s why I will not and cannot condone, endorse, or excuse the widespread disclosure of Sen. Patrick’s medical records.

The records in question—which include treatment for mental illness—were made public 25 years ago as part of a lawsuit that he filed under the name Dannie Scott Goeb, which he legally changed to his talk radio “stage name,” Dan Patrick, in 2003. Members of Sen. Patrick’s own party sent these documents to the Texas media in May in an attempt to smear him before the Republican primary.

It didn’t work. Sen. Patrick trounced incumbent lieutenant governor David Dewhurst for the Republican nomination.

Now, some Democrats—a few of them prominent leaders of progressive PACs and feminist organizations—are trying the same despicable tactic, despite the fact that the Van de Putte campaign has specifically asked “allies” in behind-the-scenes documents not to demonize and smear Patrick in this way.

I watched in horror yesterday as friends of mine—people who call themselves feminists, liberals, progressives, Democrats—giggled and raved over the records, even gleefully mocking Patrick’s doctors’ descriptions of his physical body. I watched their Facebook friends and Twitter fans crow about Dan Patrick, the “looney.”

This is inexcusable. It is horrifying. It is a campaign of abject shame. It is trading on the public’s inclination to condemn those who have mental illnesses, and it does nothing to bring to light the realities of Sen. Patrick’s politics.

While Texas has historically come in last or nearly last in per-capita mental health funding, Sen. Patrick and his fellow Republicans nevertheless made unprecedented cuts to health-care funding in the 2011 legislative session, including drastic funding decreases to mental health services and family planning care. They made some attempts to right those wrongs in the 2013 biennial budget, which Sen. Patrick very notably voted against.

Some have said that as a person with mental illness himself, Sen. Patrick must be criticized for voting against mental health funding. But shaming him for seeking treatment is not the answer; to do so only perpetuates the stigma surrounding mental illness, and tells the 4.3 million Texans who live with it that they could never be qualified to run for office, lest they themselves find their histories up for inspection.

From my own Facebook feed, just a few of the reactions from folks who have read and shared the medical records include,”Oh my!! He’s pretty looney;” “Don’t go diving into other peoples’ healthcare if you don’t want your own divulged;” and “He has not continued treatment and has continued to display bizarre, erratic behavior.”

What are we telling people with mental illness when we say these things? That their treatment plans must be evaluated and voted on by the public? That their right to privacy depends entirely on whether other people are happy with their political ideology? That anything they do will be directly tied to their health needs, perpetuating the disgusting idea that people with mental illness are violent criminals? That they’re just too damn nuts to be taken seriously?

To effectively cow millions of Texans out of the running for elected positions in this way is to do a grave disservice to this state’s potential to improve the diversity of its public representatives, and silences valuable voices who could provide much-needed perspectives on the needs of this especially underserved group of Texans.

To their credit, many, many people have expressed shock and dismay at the dissemination of Sen. Patrick’s records, rightly calling out others for their ableism and lack of compassion. When I joined them in pushing back against sharing the documents, the most common rationalization I heard in response boiled down to the idea that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. That because Republicans have scrutinized the medical decisions of people like Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, that exposing Dan Patrick’s care history is some kind of fair game.

I’m not interested in indulging in some kind of childish “tit for tat” exercise with Republicans. I don’t think Wendy Davis’ personal medical history—which she affirmatively shared in her new book, while Sen. Patrick’s background was wrangled into the public record as part of a legal dispute—is up for debate and scrutiny. Of course, that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been debated and scrutinized, sometimes in the most atrocious terms by the Republicans who dubbed her “Abortion Barbie” and who accused her of fabricating her abortion stories.

It also doesn’t mean that Democrats can or should stoop to this level.

ButMoooooomhe hit me first!” is no reason to throw compassion out the window, and I’m embarrassed on behalf of everyone who has shared these documents. Yes, the GOP has shown a disturbing interest in judging the private medical decisions of citizens. But for Democrats to froth at the opportunity to give the GOP a taste of its own medicine is the height of hypocrisy, and the very definition of the word “unprincipled.”

You either believe people’s private health histories are their own business, or you don’t. When you share Dan Patrick’s medical records, you’re saying that some people deserve privacy more than others—that some humans are worth more than others.

Now, I know that Dan Patrick doesn’t believe in my right to privacy. He carried Texas’ mandatory sonogram bill in the 2011 legislative session, so I know with certainty that he believes I am not capable of making my own medical decisions. I also know that he believes the government of Texas—into whose highest ranks he is asking to be installed—should force all pregnant people to carry every pregnancy to term, every time.

But I want Dan Patrick to have the same protections of privacy that I wish to have for myself, no matter how far apart we may be politically and ideologically. I refuse to demand something for myself that I would not ask to be granted to another Texan.

There is no joy following the GOP down the low road, in picking apart people’s medical histories and demanding they publicly explain decisions they made with their families and doctors. When it comes to voting decisions, the fact that Dan Patrick has sought help to treat mental illness is, to borrow the language of the Texas legislature itself, not germane.