Newsweek Hits McCain for Air Quotes in Debate, Cites Liberal Critics

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
  • Bookmark and Share

Newsweek screencap | NewsBusters.orgIn an October 16 Web exclusive today, Newsweek's Sarah Kliff looked at the "chorus of disapproval" that met Sen. John McCain's use of air quotes when dismissing the "health of the mother" exception that swallows the rule in some late-term abortion bans. Of course Kliff hit her readers with complaints from such unbiased, neutral observers as Chris Matthews and NARAL Pro-Choice America, which endorsed Sen. Obama in May. She concluded by citing a pro-choice Biden backer insisting that pro-lifers would be turned off too.

Kliff then went on to dive into what the health exception is in federal case law and conceded that:

McCain is correct when he suggests that the law does not specify which conditions or complications should be included in the legal definition of what constitutes a threat to the mother's health. That decision is left up to the doctor.

In Doe v. Bolton -- another abortion case handed down the same day as Roe v. Wade -- the Supreme Court ruled that "medical judgment may be exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age--relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

Although Kliff went on to quote a pro-life activist who argued that Doe's guidance is truly the exception that negates the rule, she concluded her story by insisting that pro-life voters may be turned off by the air quote gesture. In doing so, Kliff cited none other than pro-choice Democratic pollster Celinda Lake:

But McCain's unfortunate air quotes may take a bite out of his support among women. "People don't believe that doctors would use 'health' as some trumped-up excuse to perform an abortion," says Celinda Lake, a pollster with Lake Research Partners, which has done polling for pro-choice groups like EMILY's List and NARAL. She says that pro-life voters "take health seriously and want to see the health of women protected."

Opensecrets.org has a list of Lake's donations over the past few years, including a $1,500 to Joe Biden in 2007:

LAKE, CELINDA
WASHINGTON,DC 20036LAKE SNELL PERRY & ASSOCIATES/POLLS2/12/07$1,000Biden, Joseph R Jr (D)

LAKE, CELINDA
WASHINGTON,DC 20036LAKE SNELL PERRY & ASSOCIATES/POLLS3/31/07$500Biden, Joseph R Jr (D)

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Abortion assumptions

The narrative here is that a woman goes to her primary care physician, who advises her that the pregnancy may threaten her actual life, and therefore he advises an abortion. She is assumed to be undecided before she walks into the doctor's office, and the doctor is her long-time physician, who knows her medical condition and history.

However ...

  • Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the United States. Planned Parenthood is not a primary care physician. Planned Parenthood has no medical history on the women who seek abortions.
    • It's unclear how many women go to their primary care physicians first, before going to Planned Parenthood. In the first place, physicians are not allowed to disclose those confidential conversations. If anyone knows of a study that reveals that percentage, feel free to comment.
  • In any case, a woman who goes to Planned Parenthood first and seeks an abortion has already made the decision, so it isn't a result of a professional medical diagnosis
  • There is no requirement that an abortion provider be a psychological expert. A physician is not a psychologist. A medical doctor has no more emotional expertise than anyone else. Therefore, any medical doctor's judgment that a woman requires an abortion for mental health reasons is not a medical judgment.
  • How many of the women who obtain an abortion for health reasons were ambivalent about the abortion in the first place?

If health was the only reason she sought the abortion, and only as a last resort, then we'd have no right to object. But when the health exception is used as an excuse to obtain the abortion that the woman wanted anyway, it ceases to be a justification for the abortion.

The American people plainly support a right to abortion when the mother's life is in danger. In fact, Catholic theology makes a strong case for it also. In the abortion to save the life of the mother, the purpose is not to kill the baby, but to save the mother. If you cannot save both, it is morally neutral which life you save.

The Obama argument that he opposed the partial-birth bans because of the health exception just doesn't hold water.

"If health was the only reason she sought the abortion"...

...less than 7% is for health reasons... 
Reasons for abortions (Wiki)

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions. Another study, in 1998, revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

  • 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing (choice)
  • 21.3% Cannot afford a baby (choice)
  • 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy (choice)
  • 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy (choice)
  • 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job (choice)
  • 7.9% Want no (more) children (choice)
  • 3.3% Risk to fetal health  (health)
  • 2.8% Risk to maternal health (health)
  • 2.1% Other

...facts can be a funny thing, funny in that too few people tend to use them anymore.

v

btw: why do you think they call it "pro-choice"(91% of the reasons) instead of "pro-health" (7%)?

health???

With modern medicine what it is, I question the validity of health as a true reason for an abortion; in other words, IMO, I think they say health to better justify it.

 

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

LK...to me it (abortion) is zero...

...because no "abortion" is warranted.  If in the process of a medical procedure one or both lives are at risk, the decision to save one over the other should not be considered an abortion.  

Check this out...

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts." - from the Hippocratic Oath

 

vrwc13: The vast majority

vrwc13:

The vast majority of graduating medical students no longer recite the Hippocratic Oath at graduation.

Reasons include the Oath's opposition to abortion and euthanasia and the oath's condoning of sexism and  elitism (eg to teach the son's of colleague's, no mention of female students.).

My class submitted 3 different oath's for a vote.  The Hippocratic Oath did NOT win.  I still recited the Hippocratic Oath, as did a handfull of others, while the masses did their PC-ladened, hopey-changey oath.  

"while the masses did their PC-ladened, hopey-changey oath"

...sad, obamarx and his ilk continue to win on these battlefronts.

v

Sad to say that you are

Sad to say that you are correct concerning the realm of Medicine.

 

"... women reported the

"... women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

  • 3.3% Risk to fetal health  (health)"

Seems to me that the biggest health risk to the fetus is the abortion itself.

Where is this a health risk to the mother requiring an abortion?  Conditions such as fetal hemorrhage could endanger the mother, but the numbers of these events is too low to account for "3.3%" of abortions. 

This must be the category of abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities such as Down's Syndrome.  That puts this reason in the "choice" category, more properly the "inconvenience" category - the true primary reason.

KC: I generally agree

KC:

I generally agree with your post, but not all.

"A medical doctor has no more emotional expertise than anyone else. Therefore, any medical doctor's judgment that a woman requires an abortion for mental health reasons is not a medical judgment."

Internists and Family practitioners do have training in psychiatric issues.  Also, there are tools to help identify and measure psychiatric issues.  Some are competent to do talk therapy, though most have no desire to do such given personal limitations of interest, patience or financial restraints.   Most primary care physicians should be able to recognize and initiate the treatment and/or refer to a specialist.

Otherwise, nice post.  Very interesting portion about moral neutrality that could sustain a thread of its own.

 

No insult intended, stratman

Questions, however ...

Doctors aren't the only ones who have training in psychiatric issues. Let's extend the narrative further. Nurses have some training - could a nurse order an abortion? Could a psychologist? How about a high school counselor?

You see, once you don't presume that it requires a professional confrontation to get an abortion, the rest of the myth dissolves. It falls like a house of cards. 

The moment you say "doctor," everyone salutes and thanks God the doctor is here. The health exception myth exploits the proper respect for doctors into a moral cover for abortion. In most cases, the woman wants the abortion before she walks in the door. The health exception is just a dodge.  

Never A Thought OF An Insult, My Friend.

"Doctors aren't the only ones who have training in psychiatric issues. Let's extend the narrative further. Nurses have some training - could a nurse order an abortion? Could a psychologist? How about a high school counselor?"

Your questions are of a regulatory nature and outside the purveyance of physicians.  But I would fight to keep the ordering of procedures under the aegis of physicians.  Could it be done by others?  Yes.  Should it be done by others?  No.  I could probably wire your home, but wouldn't you rather have a trained electrician? 

A collaborative effort would be best, with physicians, nurses and clinical pysch persons working together.  There is also that new-fangled "ethics" person in hospitals, whom no one would mistake as a Conservative, that relish this type of conflict resolution. 

Of course, none of this collaboration is necessary if the Law does not require psychological enquiry, just that a female requests an abortion is all that's needed.  The ultimate reason recorded by the institution is inconsequential to obtaining the abortion and only serves a legal record keeping purpose and a potential propaganda tool.

"You see, once you don't presume that it requires a professional confrontation to get an abortion, the rest of the myth dissolves. It falls like a house of cards."

The result of going to an abortion clinic and enquiring about obtaining an abortion is analogous to going to a surgeon and asking their opinion about a problem.  Both entities are geared for one course of action only - surgery.  You don't send a patient to a surgeon to get clearance for taking a pill.  Similarly, the abortion clinic is setup to facillitate an abortion with every patient.  I have no doubt that all too often the folks working in abortion clinics feel a bit sad and dumbfounded when a patient decides NOT to have an abortion - poor, ignorant sally will suffer with that baby.  So... my point is yes it is a house of cards, a stacked deck even, and using non-professionals will probably not increase the number of abortions performed - the environment is already heavily weighted in favor of abortion.

"The moment you say "doctor," everyone salutes and thanks God the doctor is here."

Except for rural people and the elderly, the respect of physicians just ain't what it used to be.  If they're like this in your area, I'd think about putting a shingle out in your town! 

The consumerism spin that Medicine and patient's are being pitched is not helping either.  Medicine, dealing with ill people, is not like any other business, and will never be as good as it can be under the constraints of the modern business model.  Bacteria, virii and cancer just do not adhere to Modern Man's timetables.  A coding system with nearly the same complexity as the IRS tax codes does not help.  Neither do billing systems that are designed and implemented to stonewall collections, or, the Twilight Zone battle of ordering tests and treatments for your patients from recalcitrant insurers.  And don't get me started about contracts with no fee schedules available (like going shopping not knowing how much money you need to take, and once there, there are no prices on anything until after you purchase) or mandatory acceptance of crappy plans to keep the ones you really want.

(Major midnight rant /off)

Time and money are not on the side of your physician.  If you know where people are as respectful and appreciative as you wrote, please tell me so I can work there. 

"The health exception myth exploits the proper respect for doctors into a moral cover for abortion. In most cases, the woman wants the abortion before she walks in the door. The health exception is just a dodge."

Agreed. 

 

 

Stratman

Perfect. Well written, interesting, informative. Perfect.

I feel a mixture of

I feel a mixture of pleasure, humility and embarrassment receiving such praise from one of NewsBusters' resident Men of Letters for a post more complaining than uplifting, perhaps insightful but not enlightening. 

Thank you for your gracious words.

Strat!!!

Just sayin' HI!!

I ain't getting in on this...I'm F'n with a Troll right now.

Ster.

Hi Ster. Keep a safe,

Hi Ster.

Keep a safe, assured distance from Trolls.  They are known vectors of malaise and discontent.

Please return him to his spiderhole when you are finished playing.

Strat...

I keep Trolls ...nice and tight...I don't let them get away!!!

Trolls run away from me.

Ster.

Celinda Lake

Please, she is definitely not an unbiased observer. Check out who her clients are - she works for Planned Parenthood, etc. Although Celinda works with my old GOP firm on the Battleground Poll (a bi-partisan poll), there is no way she should be quoted as an unbiased source. 

 I also worked with a pro-life PAC in the DC area. And as you guys know, pro-life voters realize that by including "health" as an exemption, the law is pointless in stopping any form of abortion since a woman could say she was depressed and still abort a baby at 8 months along. So, Celinda, whatever poll numbers you are looking at, they are wrong. Or ... shocker ... a Democrat is lying about poll numbers! 

Unbiased, neutral

Unbiased, neutral supporters like Chris Matthews...

Kliff..Are you crazy...insane, lost your mind...certifiable!

...anybody that happened to catch just his show yesterday afternoon where he went off the complete end about this subject is proof enough...just for starters.  

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

It should be noted that Jon

It should be noted that Jon Stewart skewered Mahoney the other night. It was hilarious.

wrong thread

wrong thread