Trimester Trimming: The media’s elastic interpretations of Roe v. Wade

Once again, President Bush pledged in his State of the Union address to stretch the word counts of news reporters by signing a bill to ban "what opponents call partial-birth abortion." That resurfacing bill, along with other pro-life legislation and judicial nominations for strict-constructionist judges, has abortion advocates fearing that someone, somewhere might let a baby survive.

In a Los Angeles Times article on the Roe vs. Wade anniversary, the routinely biased Supreme Court reporter David Savage strained his keyboard by setting up Betsy Cavendish, "legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League." She warned "Roe is in grave peril...A switch in one vote (at the high court) could ban some abortion procedures and possibly ban second-trimester abortions." That's not exactly true. Six justices are currently committed to Roe, and five crumped a Nebraska partial-birth ban in 2000. That's where NARAL could worry about "one vote away."

Abortion enthusiasts have spent much of the last 30 years touting the line that Harry Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe created a utopian America where any curtailment of abortion on demand meant the whittling away of the Supreme Court's "landmark" ruling. In legal reality, the supposed moderation of Blackmun's clumsy trimester-dividing opinion — allowing regulations for late-term abortions if they didn't infringe on the health of the mother — was swallowed up by Roe's companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, which made it clear that "health" would be defined so broadly that the "exception" swallowed the rule. The reality was abortion on demand.

But ever since the New York Times first hailed the decision in 1973, journalists have often used what has become an increasingly misleading shorthand: Public support for abortions in the first trimester are identical to public support for Roe. They're excluding the fact that Roe led to abortion on demand, and that a repeal of Roe would lead to 50 state regimes of abortion regulation, which would in many states leave abortion legal in the first trimester (and in the "blue states," long after that).

Take the January 27 edition of Time, where reporters Karen Tumulty and Viveca Novak argued: "For its broader goals, the antiabortion movement still can't make the political math work. The Senate has a Republican majority, but at least 53 senators are on record as favoring Roe. And the public is not prepared to see it overturned. In the latest TIME/CNN poll, 55 percent of respondents said they support a woman's right to have an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy." (CNN also touted this poll question on its airwaves.) The poll question in the magazine read: "Do you favor the Supreme Court ruling that women have the right to an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy?" Time at least acknowledged public uneasiness with the accompanying question "Is it too easy for women today to get an abortion?" Sixty percent said yes, 31 percent no. Somehow, that feeling didn't penetrate many media accounts mourning that 87 percent of counties don't have an abortion clinic.

The Washington Post asked a similar Roe question for its January 22 edition: "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that a woman can have an abortion if she wants one at any time during the first three months of pregnancy. Do you favor or oppose that ruling?" In that day's Post, White House correspondent Mike Allen recounted how top Bush aide Karl Rove "stopped short of promising a White House push to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which determined that a woman's constitutional privacy rights entitled her to get an abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy."

In a summary of key Supreme Court rulings on abortion, Chicago Tribune reporter Leslie Goldman tidily summarized that the court ruled "that in the first three months of pregnancy, the abortion decision must be left to a woman and her physician. In the second trimester, states may restrict abortions to protect a woman's health. In the third trimester, states may regulate or prohibit an abortion to protect the life of the fetus, except when necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother." The intrusion of real life — where were all the convictions for second- and third-trimester abortions in the last 30 years? — didn't pierce this hermetically sealed history box.

Even conservative media outlets make this mistake. In their largely sympathetic account of the March for Life on January 23, Washington Times reporters Denise Barnes and Arlo Wagner reported "The Supreme Court voted 7-2 on Jan. 22, 1973, to legalize abortions in the first three months after conception. Pro-life demonstrators said 42 million abortions have been conducted since the decision was handed down."

Supreme Court justices, like other political actors, can often say one thing, and intentionally or unintentionally, the reality becomes something else entirely. The public expects journalists to be able to make fine distinctions, to deliver the news with judgment and context. Too often on this issue, reporters have played games of rhetorical confusion to make America sound more in favor of abortion, as citizens and as human beings, than they really are.

That resurfacing bill, along with other pro-life legislation and judicial nominations for strict-constructionist judges, has abortion advocates fearing that someone, somewhere might let a baby survive.

Man, that's a great line, and you've got to love his new term for the pro-choicers: "Abortion enthusiasts."

How about discussing why Roe v. Wade is just plain bad constitutional jurisprudence? The Lamestream Press never discusses the disturbing legal precedence set. I once shocked my ex-girlfriend by remarking the this decision was a crock.

Even when I was pro-choice, I considered Roe v. Wade to be bad law-- a tremendous case of legislating from the bench. I think well-meaning people can differ on abortion, but I don't know how you justify, in a purely legal sense, this decision. I just finished reading the excellent book Out of Order about judicial corruption and arrogance. And I was pleasantly surprised to see several impeccably liberal legal minds agreeing with my take. But modern Lefties only care about results-- not how much they corrupt the process.

An example of how much we all depend on circumstances and geography for our life. I would be killed for my actions because I am a woman in certain communities. Freepers would not be allowed to live (literally) in some countries because of our political views.
And a child may be killed until the moment she is recognized as a "person" everywhere in this country.

And now, the single decision by the Supreme Court in 1973 will allow humans to be created - "cultivated" according to the New Jersey State Assembly - for the purpose of killing them at some later date in order to allow for the harvesting of their body parts.

It's all about circumstances, isn't it?

It should be about inalienable human rights.

Sadly, this nation's agreement with 'inalienable right to life' ended in a whimper for choice that has rushed headlong to infanticide and cannibalism in thirty short years.

In this republic, the sovereigns could reverse evil degeneration of our founding principles, but to do so would require acknowledgment of our previous SCOTUS error and a clear understanding of when individual human life begins ... for the somnambulent, the scientists who deal with human life accept as axiomatic that individual human life begins at conception and is evidenced with first cell division.

Any possible future ruling by our SCOTUS cannot 'cop a plea' that they do not understand when individual human life begins; Blackmun copped that plea and 42,000,000 individual human lives have been purposely ended because of his perfidy to inalienable right to life. The truth is staggering when finally brought into focus!

The problem is that there has been *no* testimony by human embryologists in any of the landmark cases, Roe, Casey. And in Nebraska vs. Carhart, the Supremes declared Roe "stare decis."

How do we convince the Supreme Court to revisit, if at the turn of the century, they weren't willing to look at the science?

Perhaps the very nature of the cloning debate will turn things around. After all, the scientists testifying this time will be embryologists, won't they?

Now, how to convince Mr Silverback and the Senators Hatch, Specter, Feinstein and Kennedy that location and circumstances do not define humanity or rights?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.