I think deceit is implied about the "real" Dr. Laura in the headline too. It's really misleading and ought to be changed.
Otherwise, great article.
I'm not maning anything against the original poster...it is the actual sub-heading at the source. I guess since it is, maybe it shouldn't be changed.
Terrible misleading though. I read the article because of the "Dr. Laura" connection thinking there was something about the real one in it...not.
The original author's sneer at the Dr. Laura of radio fame was surely intentional, and perhaps only partly because of her moral stances: a lot of journalists (whether honest or biased) buy into the physicians' guild attempts to limit the use of Dr. to M.D.'s only.
Actually, a lot of M.D.'s any more aren't worthy of the title, which originally was an academic title indicating attainment at the highest
level (a dissertation worthy of publication as a substantial contribution to human knowledge). Somehow that requirement has not survived for most M.D.'s or J.D's, but only for Ph.D.'s (in all fields), Th.D.'s and the johnny-come lately Ed.D's (though some accredited programs offering these don't seem to have much more rigorous standards for the dissertation than Hamilton 'University' has for all of its 'requirements').