LA Times Uses Psychic Powers to Decide ‘Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views’ (And They May Be Wrong, Too)
The Los Angeles Times should never have allowed Richard Serrano’s “Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views” into the paper, much less onto this morning’s front page.
Jane Sullivan Roberts has been involved with “Feminists for Life,” an advocacy group that (among other things) runs pro-life ads aimed at college women. But the paper fails to show what her views actually are — or why they are relevant to the debate over her husband’s nomination to the Supreme Court. And unless the Times hired a psychic, Jane Sullivan Roberts’ support for this organization does not prove that she ‘holds strong antiabortion views’ as the headline claims.
The article implicitly makes the classic left-side argument that if one does not support unlimited abortion, one is ‘anti-abortion.’ Most Americans today lie on a continuum between absolutists on both sides — positions that include “but not for minors” or “but not for minors without parental consent.”
Reading the Feminists for Life material, it seems that they are advocates for avoiding pregnancy in the first place, and supporting pregnant women who might consider an abortion. That’s something the “safe, legal, and rare” crowd should also be able to get behind. The organization says it
“recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion — primarily lack of practical resources and support — through holistic, woman-centered solutions. Women deserve better than abortion. … Our efforts are shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence.”
Is that “antiabortion?” In a narrow sense. But not in the “throw out Roe v Wade” meaning that has become attached to the word.
(Update: the two links at the bottom of this post confirm that FFL are not the roll-back-the-clock bombthrowers the LAT wants them to be)
The LAT’s attempt to divine the nominee’s wife’s views is such a stretch that pro-abortion organizations didn’t have comments relevant to the article. They may be aware that it’s possible for husbands and wives to have different political views (as is the case with 100% of Independent Sources‘ editorial staff).
None of this stops the story. Rather, the middle 30% or so of the piece is devoted to reviewing her husband’s record.
For instance, irrelevant to a story on Jane Sullivan Roberts but germane to an agenda, we read
“It also pointed out that if John Rogers were to be elevated to the Supreme Court, he would be the fourth Catholic justice on the current court, along with Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.”
That’s pretty easy to decode.
So … the nominee’s wife supports a group that seeks to reduce the number of abortions by supporting women. Her actual beliefs are unknown. Her husband may or may not support the group’s feminist approach. Her husband may or may not be influenced by his wife. Her husband may or may not allow his personal influences to affect his interpretation of the law.
Weak, weak, weak. This story should never have run.
—
Update: This post by a former member of FFL goes so far as to say that the group is, in some ways, progressive — meaning the entire tone of the LAT piece is 180 degrees off.
And here’s another left-side site with the same take on FFL
Similar Independent Sources posts:
- FactCheck.org: NARAL Anti-Roberts Ads “False”: FactCheck.org, as non-partisan a group as we've run across, posted an article tonight titled "NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts:" An ...
- Barbara Boxer’s SCOTUS Time-line: For those of you interested in the specifics of the Roberts confirmation here is the time-line taken from the SCOTUSblog:Today or tomorrow: President' ...
- Out of the Mainstream Groups Say Roberts Is … Out of the Mainstream: IowaHawk is spot on with this fill-in-the-blanks press release opposing John Roberts' nomination. Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the admi ...
- Study: Men enjoy seeing enemies squashed; women don’t: In yet another case of science undoing the modern notion of no differences between sexes, researchers have noticed brain wave disparity in the way th ...
- LAT on Attorney-Client Privilege: More Reporting, Please!: I was going to post about the Los Angeles Times' uncritical story about how attorney-client privilege might or might not apply to John Roberts' work i ...
July 21st, 2005 at 8:55 am
fair play for me and not thee!
the typical hypocritical double standard on the Left.
if a right-leaning publication did an article like this in regard to a liberal or “progressive” candidate they outcry would be deafening.
but we knew that already, huh?
let’s just hope this gets ignored on the Right and played down on the Left.
July 21st, 2005 at 10:41 am
You have been added..;-)
July 21st, 2005 at 1:01 pm
For instance, irrelevant to a story on Jane Sullivan Roberts but germane to an agenda, we read
“It also pointed out that if John Rogers were to be elevated to the Supreme Court, he would be the fourth Catholic justice on the current court, along with Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.”
That’s pretty easy to decode.
==============================
Stick it to the Catholics, eh? Darn Papists and the way they agree with each other!
On the other hand, if we could just get them to agree on the “right” positions…
http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/105583.php
July 22nd, 2005 at 6:43 am
[...] @
5:51 am
Independent Sources attacks yesterday’s L.A. Times article a [...]
July 23rd, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Displeased in TO writes that the comments on Mrs. Rogers being Catholic are “pretty easy to decode.” Yes, but short of the mark: the Democrats want to find something, anything, to oppose Judge Roberts, but simply don’t have anything. So they go after Mrs. Roberts, who is not only Catholic, but, as the New York Times was kind enough to tell us, a devout Catholic, listing her all-girls Catholic secondary school, that she is an alumna of Holy Cross and Georgetown, that while in college she attended Mass several times a week (horrors!).
It was all written in as positive a manner as one could find, but the implication was clear: Mrs Roberts is a strong pro-lifer because she’s a devout Catholic; because Mrs Roberts is a devout Catholic and her husband is also Catholic, he must be a devout Catholic as well; and because he is such a devout Catholic, his judgements on social issues cannot be trusted to not be influenced by his faith.
They tried this with the nomination of William Pryor in 2003, and the anti-Catholic bias (or really, anti-devout Catholic bias, given that Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy were involved) was noted in many places.
The Democrats managed to ameliorate this problem by nominating a Catholic for president in 2004, but John Kerry turned out to be such a CINO (Catholic in name only) that the majority of Catholic voters cast their ballots for President Bush.
With any luck, the Democrats will realize that this isn’t a good nomination to filibuster. If they do, the subtle anti-Catholic bias they are trying (quite deliberately) to employ will fade away, because it will be of no use. If they don’t we could see something just as ugly as what happened over Mr. Pryor, whose “deeply held beliefs” were too much for the Democrats to stomach.
July 24th, 2005 at 12:23 am
not breed terrorists. (Given the events of this week, we think its clear that you are wrong on that one Swati). Prior to Mr. Kaus report, Independent Sources had noted on several occasions what they considered her superficial and incorrect research. LA Times Uses Psychic Powers to Decide ‘Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views’ (And They May Be Wrong, Too) A scathing analysis of Richard Serrano’s “Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views,” which according to
August 19th, 2005 at 7:38 am
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wife21jul21,1,7196704,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true These guys argue that Roberts wife isn’t that strong of a conservative indicator I somewhat disagree http://independentsources.com/2005/07/21/wife-of-nominee-holds-strong-antiabortion-views-la-times/ check out her organization for yourself feminist for life mission: http://www.feministsforlife.org/who/joinus.htm Robrt’s wife’s service with feminists for life http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/jsroberts.htm
January 4th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
[...] ATED: » ‘Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion V [...]