Patterico's Pontifications

1/22/2006

The Power of the Jump™: Los Angeles Times Suggests Yet Again That Alito Will Be a Fifth Vote to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Filed under: Abortion,Constitutional Law,Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:47 pm



(Note: “The Power of the Jump”™ is a semi-regular feature of this site, documenting examples of the Los Angeles Times’s use of its back pages to hide information that its editors don’t want you to see.)

The lead article in today’s Sunday L.A. Times misleadingly suggests on Page A1 that the appointment of Samuel Alito will create a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, paving the way for abortion opponents to challenge that decision head-on.

The false suggestion comes in the very first sentence of the article, titled States Step Up Fight on Abortion:

Taking direct aim at Roe vs. Wade, lawmakers from several states are proposing broad restrictions on abortion, with the goal of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court — once it has a second new justice — to revisit the landmark ruling issued 33 years ago today.

When you read the phrase “second new justice,” who did you take that to mean? I’m betting you read “second new justice” to mean Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court already has one “new Justice”: Chief Justice John Roberts. As of today, the Senate is considering Alito’s nomination as Bush’s second appointment to the Supreme Court. In context, the phrase “second new justice” is a clear reference to Alito.

By suggesting that abortion opponents’ “goal” is to force the Court to revisit Roe once Alito is appointed, the story falsely suggests that Alito will provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe. After all, abortion opponents have no desire to mount a direct challenge to Roe while they still have only four votes on their side.

But the fact is that Alito will be, at most, a fourth vote against Roe. Abortion opponents don’t want to challenge Roe now. They are starting a years-long process of bringing cases to the Court, and are hoping that a liberal Justice will have been replaced by the time these cases arrive on the Court’s doorstep. Their goal is to have the Supreme Court revisit Roe once a third new Justice is appointed — not a “second” new justice.

The front page contains nothing to contradict the false implication of the story’s first sentence.

The article does eventually explain that Alito would be at best a fourth vote against abortion rights — but you have to turn all the way to Page A24 to learn this:

Even if Alito and Roberts prove to be staunch antiabortion votes, a bare majority of justices would still support the core principle of a woman’s right to end an unwanted pregnancy. But a retirement or illness among the more liberal justices could change that balance.

Thus, the editors manage to mislead the large number of readers who don’t bother to turn to the back pages into thinking that Alito will provide a majority to overturn Roe.

Is this deliberate? There’s no way to know for sure. But we can say that today’s misleading sentence is part of an ongoing pattern. The paper has tried this ploy before, numerous times. Every time a new Justice comes up for confirmation, the editors run articles that suggest to readers that the danger to Roe is immediate. They must know that this is not true, but the concept keeps popping up in various misleading ways, as I have documented time and time and time again.

Taken as a whole, the article has much to recommend it. It has a generally balanced approach to the controversy, including a full explication of the meaning of the “health” exception, and the fact that most abortions are not performed for health reasons. It is doubly unfortunate that a basically good article is marred by a misleading assertion right off the bat.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt is less impressed by the piece as a whole.

21 Responses to “The Power of the Jump™: Los Angeles Times Suggests Yet Again That Alito Will Be a Fifth Vote to Overturn Roe v. Wade”

  1. The LA Times can either seek to inform its readers, or seek to manipulate them. The former is journalism, while the latter is propaganda.

    You get what you pay for, and few readers are willing to pay for propaganda, hence the declining circulation, falling ad revenues, and lost jobs. And, the band played on.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  2. I believe that whether Roe will be overturned with the current justices plus Alito is somewhat controversial. How all of the justices will vote on any one issue is certainly not always a fact.

    But what’s up with the Washington Post’s Howell? This is a mis-statement of fact and yet she didn’t want to admit it?

    Washington Post’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, made a simple factual error (namely that Jack Abramoff made “substantial campaign contributions to both major parties”) and then stonewalled for days instead of issuing a quick and straightforward correction?

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008060.php

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  3. In its effort falsify Judge Alito’s record and distort the significance of his confirmation, the second paragraph on P A1 of the Dog Trainer front page editorial refers to a bill under consideration in Indiana that would ban all abortions except for those pregnancies that would threaten the woman’s life or put her health in substatial danger of permanent impairment. The idea is to make readers think that if Roe is overturned the states will oulaw all abortions.

    Not until the third to last paragraph on P A24 is the reader told that the bill’s author doubts he can get the bill out of committee.

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  4. Re # 2,

    Lefty bully boys want to strong arm the WaPo’s Deborah Howell into giving them a pass on their part in Jack Abramoff’s double dealing. But Dems are in it up to their chinny chin chins. And, their ridiculous attempts to keep the cash yet deny the source is laughable.

    Consider the Senator from Washington’s absurd dodge:

    “Sen. Patty Murray said Friday that returning contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff would ‘taint’ the tribes.”

    How’s that for “telling it like it is?” Coughing up the crooked cash would “taint” Abramoff’s Indian tribe clients. LOL, but Murray does take the prize for Most Creative Whopper, and honorable mention for creative tap dancing under media questioning.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  5. Howard Dean began the disinformation by stating on a Sunday interview program that Abramoff, a lobbyist, didn’t give any money whatsoever to Democrats. Dean’s disingenuous and bizarre statement is based on the general rule that lobbyists don’t pay people out of their own pockets, but instead funnel contributions to the politicians. Forty of the 45 Democrats in the Senate took Abramoff money. Dean must think Abramoff money means money from Abramoff’s personal bank account, or maybe his personal 401 (k) or something.

    Since the Moonbats believe Dean (even though he’s full of it) they went ballistic at the Washington Post.

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  6. Given the clear statement that “Even if Alito and Roberts prove to be staunch antiabortion votes, a bare majority of justices would still support the core principle of a woman’s right to end an unwanted pregnancy,” yeah, while you have a point about “The Power of the Jump™,” I don’t think it’s really an attempt at disinformation.

    Newspapers really do have limited space on the front page; something has to go further back. On this one, I think you’re overreached.

    Dana (71415b)

  7. National Sanctity of Human Life Day

    Hat tip: Michelle Malkin
    The text of President Bush’s proclamation can be found here.
    A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
    Our Nation was founded on the belief that every human being has rights, dignity, and value. O…

    Stop The ACLU (c485fa)

  8. […] Patterico points out how misleading this is. By suggesting that abortion opponents’ “goal” is to force the Court to revisit Roe once Alito is appointed, the story falsely suggests that Alito will provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe. After all, abortion opponents have no desire to mount a direct challenge to Roe while they still have only four votes on their side. […]

    Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » National Sanctity of Human Life Day (c485fa)

  9. Say what you will BJ and Frankfurter, but it is simply not true to state that Abramoff made “substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.”

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  10. The Liberals Who Cried Wolf.

    Stephen Macklin (4ea65b)

  11. About $3.4 million of Abramoff money went to Republicans and $2.0 million went to Democrats. To most people, anything over $1 million is “substantial.”

    So, Grasshopper, it really is true!

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  12. Ah, we see another “pattern of behavior,” this one in the L.A. Times. Much better than trying to paint Alito as a bigot because he once belonged to CAP.

    sharon (fecb65)

  13. Look at this Frankfooter: http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Jack_Abramoff.php .

    No campaign contributions went to Democrats. Is that too complicated for you? Yes, money from him may have indirectly reached Democrats, but no money was received directly from the mobster want-a-be himself.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  14. Newsmeat is for meatheads. (And as a Frankfurter, I’m eminently qualified to make that evaluation.)

    Next time, why not cite CSNS–the Cindy Sheehan News Service?

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  15. “Sen. Patty Murray said Friday that returning contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff would ‘taint’ the tribes.”

    How is that different from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who also intends to keep her tribal donation, declaring that to return the money would “insult them?”

    She says that just because Abramoff represented the Tigua Indians doesn’t mean the cash was tainted.

    http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/13564103.htm

    steve (65013e)

  16. steve,

    There is little difference, and that’s the point. Recipients of Jack Abramoff’s circuitous generosity are not differentiated by party affiliation. Both Republicans and Democrats have their hands in Jack’s cookie jar.

    However, some on the Left can’t seem to come clean and admit it. See #13 above, Psyberian wants to pretend it’s all a GOP scandal, while he neglects all evidence to the contrary.

    On the Kate Michelman thread, Dana asked a key question. “Do you ever wonder why people tell lies that they know are going to be exposed?”

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  17. Jack Abramoff gave money directly to Republicans, and his lobbying clients gave money to both Democrats and Republicans. That distinction makes our liberal friends see this as a Republican scandal, but, in fact, it’s just the opposite. The recipients of direct political contributions are the ones Mr Abramoff wanted to see reelected; the recipients of donations from the lobbying clients were made to get specific things done, for the benefit of those groups.

    If there was specific bribery, it was to get certain things done, and that kind of contribution comes from the various interest groups, not the individual.

    Dana (3e4784)

  18. Jack Abramoff gave money directly to Republicans, and his lobbying clients gave money to both Democrats and Republicans. That distinction makes our liberal friends see this as a Republican scandal, but, in fact, it’s just the opposite.

    I gather the opposite of a Republican scandal must be a Democrat scandal.

    All the lawmakers who say they did nothing in return for tribal donations – ones representing both parties – are implicated in what, precisely?

    steve (65013e)

  19. “…are implicated in what, precisely?”

    Put precisely, they are implicated in taking political donations from the clients of an indicted DC influence peddler. Jack Abramoff has pled guilty and is cooperating with investigators. A number of both Republicans and Democrats have been the recipients of generous donations from Abramoff’s clients. Some Democrats and their apologists pretend that only members of the GOP are involved, but no one with an IQ above room temperature is going for it.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  20. Patterico,

    Please clarify the gloating rule. Are we allowed to gloat now, over the cloture vote, or must we wait for confirmation?

    Black Jack (9f37aa)

  21. […] then, Savage has been screeching in article after article that McCain could provide the Court with the fifth vote to overturn Roe — just […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » David Savage Cries Wolf on Abortion Yet Again (001073)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0824 secs.