Unconfirmed photo of Tennessee Rep. Scott DesJarlais caught out of his man suit.
In 2010, physician Scott DesJarnais ran to represent Tennessee’s Fourth Congressional District on a pro-life, anti-abortion platform, and won. He also ran as an honest, trustworthy, honorable individual, as all members of the U.S. House of Representatives ought to be. He is an MD; integrity, intelligence and professional standards of conduct should be assumed. Little more than week after he was re-elected by Tennessee’s voters this year, however, the court records of his 2001 divorce were released. The Democratic Party in the state had fought to have them released before the election with the support of his ex-wife, but DesJarnais successfully persuaded a judge to wait—after all, why spoil a good surprise? When the transcripts were finally revealed, Tennesseans learned that their re-elected, pro-family Representative:
- Supported his ex-wife’s two abortions before they were wed
- Helped arrange abortions for a mistress and a patient he impregnated after they were married.
- Had multiple sexual affairs with co-workers, subordinates and patients
- Prescribed recreational pills for at least one of his sex partners
- At one point, put a pistol barrel in his mouth for two hours and threatened suicide
- Engaged in multiple actions that are violations of medical ethics, workplace ethics, and laws.
The least important of these revelations, from an ethics perspective, are the abortions. Naturally DesJarlais will be called a hypocrite, but conduct eleven years ago that contradicts his anti-abortion statements now (DesJarlais’ official website states that “all life should be cherished and protected,” and he has scored a perfect rating from National Right to Life) only proves that he has changed his mind. Then again, since the Congressman is a liar, a rogue, a sexual harasser, not real stable and probably a criminal, it’s hardly a stretch to believe that he’s a hypocrite too. Or a spy, for that matter. Or a Sasquatch in disguise. Who can trust anything about this guy?
What is the ethical course when you are seeking election to a position of trust and know that there are facts about your recent past, professional conduct and character that would cause voters serious concern if they knew about them? There are two options: disclose what the voters have a right to know, or don’t run. The third option, to keep the information secret as long as possible so that voters think you are something you are not—like honest, trustworthy and ethical—is unethical, so naturally politicians like DesJarlais choose it. If he was ethical enough to make full disclosure, he probably wouldn’t have has so much dirt to disclose. Thus DesJarlais added virtual fraud to his resume. His public persona, the one that he induced the citizens of his district to vote for, was a fabrication. They thought they were voting for an honorable professional. Surprise! He’s not. Not even close.
He should resign.
The party, public and local media should make sure of it. Meanwhile, I must ask: where does the Tea Party find creatures like this? Do they actively recruit candidates from the American Association of Assholes, Reprobates, Grotesques and Horribles (AAARGH)?
_______________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: Atlas Obscura
Ethics Alarms 
Love AARGH.
Me too. Though I do believe it should be AAARGH.
AAARGH! I’ll fix it.
Aargablarghen!
“At one point, put a pistol barrel in his mouth for two hours and threatened threatened suicide”
Is threatening to threaten as bad as just threatening though? Come now Jack, we’re not barbarians.
In seriousness, I knew about this long before the election due to reading left-leaning news. Slate and HuffPo were on it like brown on whole-grain rice. Still, I banged my head on my desk when he was elected, because the sort of people who read internet newspapers are not the ones who get these villains elected.
That settles it, then: Instead of voter ID laws, we must have voter minimum test scores on material in internet newspapers, for eligibility to vote.
In serious sarcasm, this DesJarlais delayed-onset truth-exposure only shows that the TEA Party has modeled its vetting processes after those of Democrats.
Precisely. After all, what do we know about our president and his past? Although the Chicago Tribune/LA Times made sure they found out everything they could about Jack Ryan’s life and sealed divorce records, thus greasing the skids for Obama’s Senate Race, they are strangely silent when it comes to the president and anything that would affect him negatively.
So true.
Does anyone hold the media’s feet to the fire when it comes to running interference for Obama?
Why should DesJarnais be treated differently?
Only if the media holds Attorney General Eric Holder’s feet to the fire for refusing to resign, or holds the Obama Administration’s feet to the fire for not firing Holder.
Why would that make a difference? The less dishonest, corrupt, untrustworthy officials the better. Down two is bst, but down one is still good for everybody. This isn’t a partisan issue—why would anyone want this guy in Congress?
It makes a difference if the public condones or excuses the unethical conduct- or worse, does so selectively.
The tea party doesn’t find these people, these people find the tea party. They know exactly what they need to say to get elected and they say it. The parties need to find these things out about the candidates and make sure the information comes out in the primary. Dr. DesJarnais is obviously dishonest, but these facts are only noteworthy because this district is in Tennessee. If he lived in a liberal district in the Northeast or the west coast, only the last two points listed above would have been noteworthy. Even then, the suicide thing might just make him a spokesman for depression sufferers.
What we really need is an actual choice for voters and that choice is none of the above. ‘None of the above’ should be a choice for every office.
Oh, and isn’t he a poster child for why physicians shouldn’t be allowed to self-regulate.
Remember, innocent until proven guilty.
With that in mind…..
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/2790496-95/biron-charges-lawyer-manchester
Yet another single, isolated, unrepresentative incident.
But the IUPG standard is irrelevant to the Congressman. His own testimony under oath is what is at issue. His fate should be the same regardless of whether charges are pressed, or the results of any trial. He presumably did the things he admitted to in court, and that’s plenty.