L.A. Times Subtly Alters Quote to Make Alito Look Bad
The L.A. Times alters a quote in the Casey decision to make Judge Alito look bad today, implying that the law Judge Alito voted to uphold was really a consent provision rather than a notification provision.
The David Savage article states in its fifth paragraph:
But when the Pennsylvania case reached the Supreme Court, O’Connor and the court majority rejected Alito’s view and characterized the “spousal notification” law as an insult to married women.
“Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry,” the court said in an opinion written in part by O’Connor. It is “repugnant to our present understanding of marriage” to permit the state “to enable the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife’s decision,” the high court said.
This is not how the quote reads in the actual Supreme Court decision. The quote in the article has been altered. The second part of the quote does not appear precisely as quoted anywhere in the opinion. The closest the Court comes to that language is this passage:
For the great many women who are victims of abuse inflicted by their husbands, or whose children are the victims of such abuse, a spousal notice requirement enables the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife’s decision.
In the quote in the L.A. Times, note how the word “to” has been added before the word “enables,” and how an “s” has been removed from that word.
A minor detail? Not really. Altering the quote this way allows the reporter, David Savage, to more easily combine the “repugnant to our present understanding of marriage” phrase with the doctored “enables the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife’s decision” — language which appears two full paragraphs earlier in the decision.
The altered quote makes it sound like the law generally allows husbands an effective veto over an abortion. But in the actual opinion, the Court makes clear that the law is only “an effective veto” for most abused women.
By the time the law’s provisions are fully described further down in the story, readers have already been led to think of the law as a consent provision for all women, rather than for an unspecified percentage of abused women, as Judge Alito described it.
Of course, nowhere does the article mention the way that Justice O’Connor changed the “undue burden” standard in Casey, or the popularity of notification provisions like this (over 70% of the public favors them).
We don’t necessarily have a right to expect that level of fairness. But can’t we at least get the quotes accurate?
P.S I don’t want to overstate the complaint about the alteration. The key point here is that the quote is taken out of context. Quotes from two separate paragraphs are placed together as though they are part of the same thought, making the law’s effect sound more draconian than it really was. The minute changes in the wording of the quote (removing a letter from a word and adding a word in front of it) simply make it easier for the reporter to paper over the fact that the quotes are really entirely separate.
Casey at the bat
SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito's dissent in Casey is becoming a major battleground over which this nomination is being fought, at least among those vying for a rhetorical upperhand. Which is why those of us who support the Alito nomination need to be…
protein wisdom (c0db44) — 11/1/2005 @ 9:18 amSomehow, in the MSM’s spin of this opinion, the four exceptions in Section 3209 of the PA law, particularly no. 4, will be ignored, as if the law sought to require women to notify their husbands even though they feared resulting abuse. This, of course, is in line with the lie that describes the law as requiring consent, not just notification (in circumstances not covered by the exceptions, of course, but we’ll never see that in the MSM, with the possible exception of the Washington Post, which seems to be treating Alito more fairly than the rest — that’s not saying much, but it’s something).
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/1/2005 @ 9:39 amThe problem, as always, is that abortion is always argued on the fringes. About 60% of the population approves of an adult womans right to an abortion on demand in the first trimester, but that support evaporates the moment you speak of further rights (minors, late term, state subsidies, non-notification, etc). This is shown in poll after poll. The all-or-nothing positions garner only 15% each.
The problem with Roe (besides it being a gross usurpation and political blunder) is that it is so open-ended (“or health”) as to make any restrictions impossible. If one is to follow Roe to the letter, decisions like Casey are correct — Roe prohibits any meaningful restriction, as the “or health” provision allows nearly anything.
While I think that Roe will never be fully overturned (pity that), I do think that the emerging balance on the Court will remove the “or health” loophole and allow the states to restrict abortion outside of a core first-trimester, adult, right.
Which is, of course, what the radical abortion lobby fears, but what the public wants.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 11/1/2005 @ 10:04 amGood eyes and good thinking. you would have been a topflight auditor.
Rod Stanton (151a78) — 11/1/2005 @ 10:18 amLittle things do mean a lot.
I’m a woman in full possession of both her reproductive system and her faculties.
Weary of Roe v. Wade as our constant bellwether and albatross whenever a Supreme Court nominee comes up, as if this single issue far outweighs the importance of any other.
Weary that the U.S. Constitution takes the backseat to Roe v. Wade – nay, it doesn’t even GET the backseat, it’s made to ride on the bumper of the MSM monster truck as said truck barrels through the mud – when R v. W should not have gone on the trip to begin with.
R v. W. needs to be kicked back to the individual states where the issue belongs.
Lots o’ lefties posting all over creation that Alito wants women to “ask permission” of their husbands. That is not correct. There’s a mighty wide chasm between “permission” and “notification”.
Lot’s o’ lefties posting that Alito would “overturn Roe v. Wade”. This overlooks that he personally and singly cannot do that.
*sigh*
Godspeed Samuel Alito, as fine a choice as anyone who cares about the future of this country could ask for.
Laura (7ebf76) — 11/1/2005 @ 11:13 amSorry, not to be confused with an already existing Laura here. Apologies.
If I post again I’ll amend it to something different to distinguish, sorry again. Very good site, by the way.
Laura (7ebf76) — 11/1/2005 @ 12:15 pm[…] Race taunting in America has a shameful history unfortunately, one for which few who would strut the national stage to approbation would seek to author new pages. Not to worry, there are other tactics as well. Such as the smear. Patterico caught the LA Times emending the text of the probably pivotal Planned Parenthood vs Casey in order to make it seem that Alito had opposed the majority decision in favor of spousal consent in the case of a married woman seeking an abortion. But the problem is that the law in question (although ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court) concerned a notifcation process, not a consent requirement, and had several easily effected escape clauses. But all of that would probably have been too much for you to worry your pretty little heads over, so the Times David Savage “fixes” the text for you, to make it easier for you to get on board with the right-think. […]
Neptunus Lex » You’re the guy I’ve been waiting for… (f67377) — 11/1/2005 @ 2:24 pmGet ready for the “Alito’s America” arguments based on Ted Kennedy’s description of Robert Bork’s America where women have to risk their lives to get back-alley abortions, etc. etc.
The answer is that Sam Alito’s America is a place where the people, not the judges, choose what their society will be like, and are responsible for those choices.
If this society collapses because we aborted too many of our children and couldn’t continue to grow or had to bring in people without our values to run our economy, the people should have nobody to blame but themselves.
AST (a4db1c) — 11/1/2005 @ 7:53 pmSpeaking of the Times
It’s not quite the same as stating that the Bristol Hotel was built in 1920, but Patterico shows that the LA Times printed a doctored quote that makes soon-to-be Justice Alito look bad. Patterico thinks the Times reporter screwed up the quote for mal…
Cardinal Martini (59ce3a) — 11/1/2005 @ 8:34 pm[…] Now I’m going to get back to reading Patterico’s LA Dog Trainer Year in Review. [Permalink] […]
Random Numbers » Blog Archive » Random Resolution (180ac2) — 1/1/2006 @ 9:28 pm