Reporting on anti-abortion rights march, Wash. Post omitted contrary views, pro-Roe polling, march leader's reference to "feminist abortionists" as war criminals
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article on the 33rd March for Life protest at the Supreme Court quoted several participants and organizers, reporting that they "see ... a societal tide turning against" Roe v. Wade. Not one abortion rights supporter was quoted in the article, nor did it note that public opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe.
In a January 24 Washington Post article, staff writer Michelle Boorstein interviewed participants in the previous day's 33rd March for Life protest at the Supreme Court, reporting that the protesters "see ... a societal tide turning against" Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Not once in the Post's report were any abortion rights supporters quoted, nor did the article note that public opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe. In contrast, a January 24 New York Times article quoted the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who cited recent polling showing strong support for Roe. The march is an annual anti-abortion event that takes place on the anniversary of the court's decision.
Unlike the Post, the Times article also quoted the remarks of Nellie Gray, president of the March for Life organization. The Times noted Gray's "fiery tones" during her speech, when she spoke of the "evil" being perpetuated by "feminist abortionists," predicting that they would eventually face their own version of the Nuremberg trials, in which Nazi war criminals were prosecuted:
Speaking to the crowd in fiery tones, Ms. Gray predicted that the United States would hold the equivalent of Nuremburg [sic] trials for "feminist abortionists," calling support for a woman's right to choose "crimes against humanity."
"Roe v. Wade has brutalized our country," she said. "The feminist abortionists, look at the evil they are doing. From that will come an accountability." Her words were met with strong applause, and more than a few supporters held high signs that compared abortions in the United States to "Hitler's Holocaust."
In contrast, the Post report quoted several March for Life participants and organizers, but it did not reference Gray's invocation of Nuremberg. Boorstein described the mood of the event as "closer to a party than a political protest" and reported that "the soundtrack of the day was the laughter of young people." Several of those quoted mentioned the likely confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., who participants expected would add a vote in favor of reversal.
While the Times story, by Washington correspondent Michael Janofsky, quoted participants with similar opinions, it also quoted NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan, who noted that recent polls said 65 percent of Americans are against Roe being overturned.
Several recent polls support Keenan's observation.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released on the day of the March for Life protest found that 66 percent of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade should stand, while 25 percent said it should be overturned. An earlier CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, released January 9, found that 56 percent of respondents felt that the Senate should not vote to confirm Alito if his confirmation hearings determined he would vote to overturn Roe once on the court.
And a December 19 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 57 percent of respondents said that abortion should remain legal, with 40 percent of the total number of people surveyed saying it should be legal in most cases, and 17 percent saying it should be legal in all cases. Twenty-seven percent said it should be illegal in most cases, while 13 percent said it should be illegal in all cases; 3 percent said they were not sure.
From the January 24 Washington Post article, headlined "Protesters See Mood Shift Against 'Roe' ":
Tens of thousands of abortion opponents held an upbeat rally on the cold, gray streets of downtown Washington yesterday and described what they see as a societal tide turning against the 33-year-old Roe v. Wade court decision that legalized the procedure.
Demonstrators at the annual March for Life said their movement has been buoyed by two recent Supreme Court nominees -- one of them confirmed -- who appear open to reconsidering the 1973 decision. They talked optimistically about how technological advances are producing clearer sonograms, which could make it harder to argue that a fetus is not a person.
[...]
"This is the beginning of the end. We'll look back at some point soon and won't believe that people were ever killing babies like it was nothing," said Ryan McAlpin, 19, who came from Chicago with a group of friends.
The march is held each year to protest the Supreme Court's Jan. 22, 1973, decision that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy. The first protest was in 1974 in Washington.
[...]
Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at the Family Research Council, told a morning gathering of 40 antiabortion bloggers that the demise of Roe would mean a battle within each state over whether abortion should be legal -- a more localized, grass-roots fight.
"Consensus is building that we are moving into a post-Roe future, and we need to be ready," she said.
The pendulum swing, she said, is reflected in the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. Neither man is a guaranteed antiabortion vote in any court case, Yoest noted, and even if both men vote to overturn Roe, the balance on the court is still 5 to 4 in favor of the ruling.
But society is clearly more open to the idea that Roe was a bad ruling on constitutional grounds, Yoest said, and is generally becoming more concerned about ethical ramifications in such areas as stem cell research and euthanasia.
"You're seeing an increasing feeling that Roe was poorly decided. And Alito's confirmation will be a watershed moment in that direction," she said.
[...]
President Bush addressed the event by telephone from Kansas, where he traveled yesterday for a speech on terrorism. In four minutes of remarks that largely followed the language he has used in past calls to the march, Bush vowed to continue fighting for what he calls a "culture of life" and the principle that every life has value.
"These principles call us to defend the sick and dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children," he said. Although he rarely discusses abortion in detail before general audiences, Bush recited his record on the issue for the activists, boasting that one of his first acts as president was to cut off taxpayer money to programs that promote abortion overseas and hailing other actions such as a ban on the procedure opponents call "partial birth" abortion. He also urged the Senate to pass legislation approved by the House aimed at preventing people from taking minors across state lines to avoid parental notification laws.
Few counter-demonstrators were visible at yesterday's event, although a small group was gathered around a light pole across the street from the Supreme Court. As they yelled, "My body, my choice," through a bullhorn, they were drowned out by dozens of young abortion opponents shouting, "Boo!" On the other side of the wide sidewalk in front of the court building, rows of teenagers stood in a silent protest, a single strip of red tape across their mouths with the word "life" written in black.
From the January 24 New York Times article, headlined "At March on the Mall, Abortion Foes Rally Behind a New Theme: Alito":
Nellie Gray, the president of March for Life, the group that organized the rally, said reversing Roe was this year's theme. Speaking to the crowd in fiery tones, Ms. Gray predicted that the United States would hold the equivalent of Nuremburg trials for "feminist abortionists," calling support for a woman's right to choose "crimes against humanity."
"Roe v. Wade has brutalized our country," she said. "The feminist abortionists, look at the evil they are doing. From that will come an accountability." Her words were met with strong applause, and more than a few supporters held high signs that compared abortions in the United States to "Hitler's Holocaust."
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said the Nellie Grays of the country had it wrong. In a telephone interview, Ms. Keenan said that Roe represented fundamental values that Americans held dear, including personal responsibility and privacy. Referring to recent polls, she said 65 percent of Americans did not want Roe overturned.
Nonetheless, Roe's opponents "smell a victory," she said, adding: "It's a perfect storm for them. They have an antichoice president and an antichoice Congress. Now they want an antichoice Supreme Court."
Holocaust. Nuremberg. War criminals.
Such shrill speech. Listening to the rhetoric of the left and the right, it seems that everyone, nowadays, is a Nazi. With so many emotive accusations, what's being said or heard?
As a Quaker, abortion is problematic for me. Being pro-life means no war, no state executions, and no terminating pregnancy.
As a feminist, I believe that no men bear the burden of pregnancy that women do and few men bear an equivalent burden of childrearing.
As a pragmatist, I believe that the world has far too many children. We have swarmed all over the world and like a locust horde that denudes a landscape and then dies, that seems our fate, to some degree.
But Boorstein's tilted reporting doesn't serve discourse. And repeating hyperbolic phrasing distracts from the hard decisions that we all must make with regards to abortion, overpopulation, gender roles, etc.
"As a feminist, I believe that no men bear the burden of pregnancy that women do and few men bear an equivalent burden of childrearing."
As a man raised by a feminist and about to become a father, I think men that don't want to do any childrearing are able to avoid everything except financial responsibility, and that men who want to be parents are only able to do so for as long as a woman is willing to tolerate them.
Men may have a lesser burden with childrearing, but that goes hand in hand with being second-class parents.
That being said, I don't believe any woman has ever chosen an abortion she didn't believe was necessary. I also support stem cell research and doctor-assisted suicide, so I'm all for Roe remaining the law of the land.
Fifty-three percent of those polled described themselves as "pro-choice"; 42 percent characterized themselves as "pro-life."
Why didn't they just poll 100% of those who are pro choice and claim that everyone in America is for abortion.
It looks as though those poll numbers are skewed a bit.
Did you look at the huge variety of polls over time, some broken down by party? The link was right up there.
Polling Report
Get back to us on that skewed thing after you actually read up a bit.
If you're picking a random sample, you can't just give one question, and then throw out the responses from a group you don't want to be represented in the poll. If the poll is scientifically represented, the results can be extrapolated (within the margin of error) to represent the greater population.
The purpose of the pro-life/pro-choice question, as I see it, is to see how that view correlates with the answer to the "should Roe be overturned" question.
I'm a journalist. A podium presents power. Power must be checked by obligation. All journalists, editors, and media outlets have agendas. Some are overt. Some covert. Some unconscious. But the checks to power should be in the infrastructure of an organization.
Where were Ms. Boorstein's editors? "Protestors See Mood Shift Against Roe" is both a strong and an ambiguous statement. Those that protest Roe are biased. Are they therefore the best positioned to discern a major mood shift? Or do they suffer from the near-sightedness of subjectivity? The title of Boorstein's piece suggests a grand shift in attitude, but can she must support such a suggestion with data?
Again, I fault Ms. Boorstein's editors as much as Ms. Boorstein.
As far as presenting contrary data, such as polling numbers that refute the title, that's English 101: thesis/antithesis.
In my view, it appears that journalists have really abrogated the "investigative" portion of journalism. A majority of the articles I've read over the last few years don't have any indications of critical thinking, representations of point/counterpoint, or any research work on the part of the journalist. A great many articles are simply "Mr/s. X says Y", and that's it.
And to me, that's very sad. It's like every reporter has been turned into a society column writer.
Given the fact that the media consistently has presented the pro-abortion point of view ad nausem, I see no need in the one article a year (which only sees the light of day because of the March for Life on the anniversary of Roe v Wade) it is fitting that it be about them and not drag in the otherside's view which as I noted is given more than it's fair share of coverage. If you want it that way, then everytime a pro-abortionist spouting off about women's rights is covered in the media, that media should give equal time to the opposition. That of course would be fair, but I am not holding my breath while I wait for the media to be fair about this coverage any more than they are about presenting the democratic point of view, when the republicans attack. It ain't going to happen.
There's no such thing as "pro-abortion."
I purposely impregnate my wife every couple of months just so we can get an abortion. They can be a cost, but great fun nonetheless.
My wife and I often picket ob/gyn clinics with signs and chants of "adoption - NOT an option!" or "Hey! Why not abort?".
We are currently pushing for legislation that makes abortion mandatory for everyone because the ratio of people to resources is just too high. We don't think people should have a choice anymore because our ideas are simply better informed than yours and we know what is good for everybody.
;-)
An op-ed column was once the aspiration of many journalists. Now, it seems, that those assigned to investigate merely uncritically quote and opine.
Is this what people want? Is are the consumers of the media indifferent to facts?
People have become so partisan that they are now immune to facts that do not easily or reasonably reconcile with their political/philosophical point of view. They are ideological junkies.
Here is a link to a new study that shows the core problem. It is pretty interesting. I have noticed this behavior for a long time. It appears this is evidence it is true.
Anti-choice advocates, the Religous right and Republicans really eat this stuff up. No one will overturn Roe v. Wade. Why? It's what gets them elected each election cycle. They can get up on the platform at cry to heaven about the poor, poor babies. Forget what circumstances that may have placed the mother in that position. Forget the mother. The mother is meaningless to these groups. Abortion is such a kicker for these groups and if it got overturn, then they have nothing left to get elected on, and the other side and cry how the government took away individual rights.
The Republican Party needs Abortion in America.
Yesterday I read a letter to the editor of a local paper, The writer suggested that the Pro-choice and Pro-life movements declare a truce. The writer suggested that both sides devote their resources and time to promoting universal sex education and easy access to contraception, with the goal of eliminating abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancies. The writer's opinion was that the Pro-life people would never agree to promoting sex education and contraception. The only contraception that would please the Pro-life side would be abstinence. My point is that there is much more to the Pro-life side than stopping abortion. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, the next thing they would work to overthrow would be family planning and sex education. We've already started cutting funding for healthcare and education for poor children. How would we care for even more children? The right does not believe in Darwinism, unless we're talking about Social Darwinism, then that's OK with them.
Interesting points MonkeyboyIV and Worrierking. I wonder what the Right would be without abortion. And I worry, if Roe is overturned as many social programs that care for children are also overturned, what will happen to all those extra babies...and what will happen to us, for the world is already too crowded.