Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In Which the New York Times Spoils My Day
Yesterday proved a thoroughly lovely day–cold air but bright sunshine, got a lot of work done, went for a jog with the dog, had a good time talking with my kids when they got home from school–and then? I read the New York Times. In particular, an editorial headlined “When Bishops Direct Medical Care,” about a case the ACLU is bringing on behalf of woman who was refused an abortion at a Catholic hospital.
An excerpt:
How the suit will play out is unclear, but it showcases an important issue. Catholic hospitals account for about 15 percent of the nation’s hospital beds and, in many communities, are the only hospital facilities available. Allowing religious doctrine to prevail over the need for competent emergency care and a woman’s right to complete and accurate information about her condition and treatment choices violates medical ethics and existing law.
In re those three sentences, three observations:
1. Because Catholic hospitals are the only hospitals in certain communities, the Times suggests, property rights simply do not apply. Catholic organizations may build and run the hospitals, but the hospitals must be operated according to the ethics, judgement and wishes of the federal government, which is to say, of course, of the liberals who staff the health bureaucracy. You really couldn’t ask for a more exact illustration of the mindset of a commissar.
2. Just get a load of the euphemisms in the final sentence–really, just look at them. “The need for competent emergency care…a woman’s right to complete and accurate information….” That sentence just floats past on a cloud of dissembling and insincerity–the Times editorial writer will resort to any verbal obfuscation to avoid saying what is obvious: that he believes in abortion on demand. Has the New York Times lost its copy of George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language?”
3. Again, look at that final sentence, in this case, the way it closes: The Catholic position on abortion, the editorial insists, “violates medical ethics and existing law.” I’d have thought that the First Amendment would trump “existing law,” whatever that might mean, and that the Times, so eager to trumpet the First Amendment when using the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech as a cover for publishing, say, the Pentagon Papers or Wikileaks, might refer to the First Amendment here as well. Anyway. If the editorial is correct–if the First Amendment really must be subordinated to “medical ethics [as the Times defines them] and existing law”–then freedom of religion in this country is extinct.
Arrogance, double-speak, and violence to the Constitution. In other words, business as usual.
Published in General
Abortion is not a “treatment” of a mother’s “condition”.
This is true. A friend of mine’s nephew was born at 24 weeks because his mother’s water broke. He was delivered and rushed to the NICU. It was a rough few months but he’s now almost 5 years old and is current with all of his milestones. When my friend told me about his birth and stories from the hospital I said to her “Because your nephew is a wanted child they are moving heaven and earth to keep him alive but perhaps down the hall in the same hospital an unwanted child of the gestation age could be killed”
If the mother’s life is in danger they deliver the child and give it to God and medical science as to the child’s survival. Sometime they do sometimes they don’t but abortion for the life of the mother is usually a fallacy.
The only time I read the NYT is when I need to cite them to make some leftist eat crow.
I believe it’s a sensible policy for any anti-statist to follow.
Why call the paper the Times. I suggest we start calling it “The Sulzberger’s paper.” Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, etc.
Calling the paper by its name, rather than the name of the people who drive its content lets them steal a base.
The first Amendment is the most frequently abused, Peter, precisely because nobody – liberal or conservative – ever considers its various clauses in context of the whole assertion. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly are all expressions of belief. We are free not only to think but also to perform in the public square.
What the NYT puts forth is not an open and honest deliberation but a rationalization to support their misguided desire to treat unborn children like bugs.
Very true. Just as important, the assertion explicitly assumes that the people have a right to live their beliefs — just as it explicitly strips the government of power to legislate over those matters.
In short, the Bill of Rights (just like the constitution in full) is an anti-totalitarian instrument. That is why the Progressives are so driven to dismantle it.
Sulzberger’s newspaper is the PR shop for progressive totalitarianism.
The Left doesn’t believe in freedom of religion any more than they believe in freedom of speech
Until very recently the Hippocratic Oath contained “Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”Evidently not what the NYT has in mind by way of “medical ethics. ”
That isn’t what I found. There’s afair bit of detail there about a woman experiencing what seemscredibly alleged to be a failing and hopeless pregnancy and a hospital allegedly (and seemingly) putting a fairly blind and absolute opposition to abortion ahead of the need to do what good it could — by taking appropriate steps to preserve at least the mother’s physical health in a situation in which the baby had no chance to survive.
…
The issue Peter flags sounds in principle like the Hobby Lobby case, but the facts of this one appear a lot messier.
The NYT article states, “Ms. Means is not suing the hospital for medical negligence but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” So this is not a malpractice case. The issue is not whether the medical professionals did what was right (they, and the hospital, are not the ones being sued), the issue is whether a Church owned institution can be run according to Church doctrine. That is why this is a First Amendment case.
Fair point. I still think that whether the care was compromised by the policy will come into issue.
Peter, why do you say in public that you read the NYT? Is this the sort of behaviour you want to encourage in the impressionable youth of this country who might look up to you? Before you say it is important to know what the paper of record is saying, please reflect that it is you who are giving it importance. If the Peter Robinsons of the world laughed at those who still took the Times seriously we would be one large step toward liberty. It’s all in your mind, Peter. Ignore them, for the children’s sake.
In response to comment 5, it was my understanding that modern medical conditions – in particular, C-sections – have all but eliminated the possibility of having to kill an unborn child to save a mother’s life. Birth can be forced prematurely if need be.There are certainly cases of botched medical care in any hospital, including Christian hospitals. I’m not sure this NYT author is a reliable source of the essential facts in this case. Journalists often leave out important details. In any case, an unborn child is as deserving of life as a mother, and so should be afforded even the slightest possibility of survival at great cost to the mother. But at some point it must be the mother’s decision whether or not to risk her own life for her child. If one absolutely must die, let the mother choose which.The worst part of that article? Abortion is not a “treatment” of a mother’s “condition”.
Not only does he give it unwarranted importance, he also shows up in their circulation numbers. And maybe even subscription revenue.
We need to stop supporting the business plans of the Leftists who hate us.
I know, oppo research, I know… But I’m still not going to turn my cable TV back on. Or pay the Sulzbergers one thin dime, ever. It would be like patronizing a restaurant where I know the staff spits in my food.
They don’t want any woman to have “complete and accurate information.” It would destroy the abortion industry. ·2 hours ago
That, EJ, is a very, very good point, beautifully stated.
It was a moment of weakness, genferei. Mea maxima culpa.
As I write elsewhere, Obamacare is now the de facto supreme law of the United States, supplanting the Constitution wherever the two conflict. The Times is educating the public on the new state of affairs while simultaneously setting the electoral stage for the War on Women, 2014 edition.