I work at the Department of Health here in Washington State. I took two copies of Barbara's initial post (infomercial) regarding the news and the links. What I got were people highly skeptical of the voracity, and highly suspicious of the University that published it (Baptist so therefore not really credible in the subject of law). One comment was, "if a child is hurt by their policies it's one thing, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for an adult that would go to a church for medical advice." I know that was pretty cold, but I'm writing it down as it was stated to me.
I did explain the cult/brainwashing angle, and immediately they said, well I work with so-and-so and they don't seem to be a drone, they seem pretty intelligent.
My disappointment personally is that there are so many ways for the WTS to attack the veracity of this piece. One, the person that wrote it is an ex-JW who's mother died due to this policy. Hardly a neutral party and they will have a field day with that in court or in the media. The other as stated above, we who work in public health know that a conservative university should be careful before casting stones in a glass house. They misrepresent facts all the time with regards to abstinence, safe sex, and stem cells, etc.
However, despite my doubts, I did run this by some people that I respect, and you see how they felt about it.
I will say good luck to all that think there is mileage to be made somehow. I do believe if it gets some people out of that hurtful and horrible organization then it will have been a worthwhile article. I just don't think it's big based on non-witness professional reaction (at least from those in a public health policy perspective).