A TAC-y Move

As I've noted repeatedly of late, I have been trying to get some answers out of the Treatment Advocacy Center concerning their arguments for outpatient commitment. Are the patients they track who do violent things on meds or not at the time of their crimes? And so on.

Apparently, TAC doesn't like being challenged. Yesterday, I received the following email from Alicia Aebersold, the non-profit's spokesperson:

"I appreciate your interest in assisted treatment law and our statistics. However, my time is limited and I have to put TAC's mission first - so I must sign off. Best of luck."

I've been a reporter long enough to know when someone's cutting ties. That's kind of a stupid thing to do. Smart advocates I talk with tell me, no matter what cause they are reppin', that you always keep talking to the media even if you think they'll go against you. But TAC is taking the line of such noted advocacy groups as PETA, Focus on the Family, certain animal research facilities I could name, and others.

By the way, this is the same Alicia Aebersold who supplied Pete Earley with the people with mental illness kill cops 5.5 times more than the general population number, which he then used in an op-ed, and didn't tell him, according to Earley that the number was from 1998. That's sloppy advocacy.

Also, I've been a reporter long enough to know that when an advocacy group refuses to answer well-founded skeptical questions about its claims that is a group that is either deeply arrogant or has, um, issues. Still, I'm sure they are confident that they have vast influence on the media around the country, since their essential argument has been made on the WashPo's opinion pages 3 times in the last 2 weeks. Given the contacts they must have at the paper, I wouldn't be surprised if they have shit-talked me based upon my writings here. I guess we're going to find out just how open the Post's opinion pages are in the next week or so.

So, hey, a question for readers: Do you think what I submit to the Post should include an account of my trying to get info out of TAC and the group cutting me off? Do you think I should also reveal the following statement, which is attributed to one of TAC's board members, DJ Jaffe:

"People care about public safety," TAC publicist D.J. Jaffe told attendees at a 1999 National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) conference. "Once you understand that, it means that you have to take the debate out of the mental health arena and put it in the criminal justice/public safety arena." Jaffe went on to point out that efforts by NAMI to enact 'assisted' treatment laws as a way to provide better care for the mentally ill had failed because the public doesn't care about the seriously ill."

What do you readers think I should do? Do you think TAC's position begins to sound a bit like political opportunism on the backs of two dead cops in Virginia? Or is it a straightforward response that shouldn't be questioned? Tell me about it in comments or in email please.

And if anyone at TAC wants to take issue with how Jaffe is quoted, you know where to find me. If you don't object, then I will have to assume that Jaffe's quote, cited by multiple sources, is in fact true.