Editorial

June 27, 2006

Editorial

Truly Obscene Language...What Is Going on in South Carolina?

by Julie Catalano

Appalling and disturbing language in the new, recently-passed South Carolina Veterinary Practice Act could mislead that state's complainants into thinking they are forbidden to reveal the name of the veterinarian they file on or even reveal the existence of the complaint they filed...and that is not true.

First, congratulations to SC advocate Marcia Rosenberg, who has been tenacious in holding these vets' feet to the fire and making great strides in bringing daylight to the secret systems that all veterinary boards are. Read of her ongoing battle to hold South Carolina vets more accountable in a public setting...and this latest victory is a significant one.

The good news is that the vet board disciplinary hearings are now open to the public, as they should have been all along, as they are already in some states, and should be in all of them. We have the right to know which vets are violating the statutes of the Veterinary Practice Act, resulting in the injury and deaths of countless pets.

The bad news is that some veterinarians and vet-friendly legislators seem determined to threaten the public into silence. In a disgraceful move, they allowed "gag" language into the Veterinary Practice Act itself in what looks to be an attempt to mislead the public into thinking that the vet board has actual jurisdiction over private citizens.

They don't.

Maybe they're relying on public ignorance and public trust to intimidate South Carolina pet guardians into protecting a vet's identity until they -- the vet board itself -- in effect gives "permission" to citizens to disclose the name of the vet.

Nice try, South Carolina legislature. Can you say "unconstitutional"?

Apparently some veterinarians in South Carolina are not terribly concerned about attempting to squash the rights of citizens to tell of their bad experiences with vets. And some legislators must be deliriously happy that they were able to sneak in that language, maybe in the hopes that the public would be too stupid or trusting to know that there isn't a vet board in the country that has the power to take away your rights.

No United States citizen needs any kind of permission to exercise their right to free speech, least of all from a veterinary board. No board anywhere has any jurisdiction over you. They are not law enforcement. They are not a court of law. They are not even elected officials. They are nothing more than licensing and regulatory agencies that serve and regulate ONLY VETS. They can't even get you for jaywalking, much less deprive you of your constitutional freedoms.

Heaven knows vet boards try to throw their considerable weight around every day, and they certainly get away with plenty, but this latest move by the SC board and legislature is beyond the pale. It sounds like they are counting on people not knowing any better than to be cowed into protecting vets as much as they themselves do.

The language in the South Carolina VPA that "prohibits" South Carolinians from revealing a complaint they filed against a veterinarian -- even to disclose the mere existence of a complaint -- could possibly be some of the most arrogant, misleading, and downright dishonest language ever put into pseudo-law.

Thankfully, it is also meaningless. But they're probably hoping you won't figure that out.

If a South Carolina veterinarian tells you that you that it is against the law to reveal his name when you file a complaint -- he is wrong

If a South Carolina legislator tells you it is against the law to reveal the existence of a complaint -- he is wrong too.

If a South Carolina lawyer tells you you are legally forbidden from revealing a vet's name in a complaint scenario -- it would be impossible to run far and fast enough from an attorney who cooperates with any attempt to silence your freedom of speech.

Obviously, all of the above individuals could be thinking ahead in the hopes of being able to shut you up about what a South Carolina vet did to your pet. if you were contemplating, say, putting up a web site and telling your story as it is your right, well then, that little phrase in the state's practice act should put an end to that.

Baloney.

If you are a citizen of South Carolina (or the United States), and you file a complaint on a vet, you have the right to share that information. For that matter, you have the right to share your opinions of and experiences with a florist, a dry cleaner, or a manicurist -- good or bad, official complaint or no.

For the South Carolina legislature to allow that type of misleading and some might say threatening language in their Veterinary Practice Act is shameful. Just how desperate are they to protect vets?

Given the history of vet boards shielding veterinarians over their supposed charge of protecting the public -- and South Carolina is not alone -- do we really want to wait until veterinarians grant us permission to speak?

The best news of all is that the really bad news for the South Carolina veterinary board and the legislature who allowed this, is that the constitution is much stronger than any language anyone can ever come up with.

To me, there is no language more obscene than that which threatens a citizen's right to freedom of expression.

But it says a lot about the people who crafted that language, doesn't it?

If it originated with a veterinarian, do you really want that person taking care of your family members?

If it originated with a legislator, do you really want that person helping to enact the laws of the state?

Either way, you can vote with your pocketbook to patronize a veterinarian who isn't trying to trample your constitutional rights, and you can vote at the polls to say goodbye to a legislator trying to do the same. You have the power.

Speak up, South Carolina. Get that egregiously unconstitutional language out of the Veterinary Practice Act before somebody actually believes it. Which may be exactly what some of those veterinarians and legislators want.

6.27.06

"What is driving me is the public has a right to know details about the veterinarian that they chose to care for their pets. That is the bottom line," Rosenberg said. "Everything comes back to that."

-- Marcia Rosenberg, animal advocate, South Carolina

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

-- Senator Larry Grooms, South Carolina