Since I started a collection of I.F. Stone's writings,* it seems proper to do a bit of media criticism. First off, the opening essay in the collection is one he used for an earlier collection of his writings (you know, when he was alive and all) from his little blog-like four page weekly. The piece discussed the problems with media "today" (early 1960s), including the lack of independence and the focus more on advertising and such than real news. When I read such things, it is both depressing and re-assuring ... in a fashion. We passed this way before. Unlike some seem to suggest, it is not new ... it does trouble me that one rarely sees such historical context. After all, the "media wasteland" was labeled by what's-his-name a long time ago. It might be worse now, but the basic themes were there. We should respect our smaller place in history, even our depths.
The (AP) piece in question we shall briefly look at is entitled "Louisiana becomes first U.S. state to outlaw controversial 'dilation and extraction" abortion procedure.'" Let it be noted that this is a good start in that it does not use the emotionally laden and one-sided term "partial birth abortion," which is not the official term by any means. D&E seems the appropriate term to use ... not the colloquial one, though the generally accepted 'slang' is acceptable in various cases. The article also notes controversy over the term itself:
Anti-abortion activists call the procedure "partial-birth abortion;" surgeons and abortion rights activists call it "dilation and extraction."
The short piece begins with the news that Louisiana will be the first state to take advantage of the recent Carhart ruling:
Louisiana became the first American state Friday to outlaw a controversial abortion procedure that involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion. The new law allows the procedure in only one situation at any time during pregnancy: when failure to perform it would endanger the mother's life. The procedure would be a crime in all other cases, even if the pregnancy is expected to cause health problems for the mother. ... The statute is parallel to a federal ban that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which was upheld in April by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Good start, brief and to the point as well as fairly ("controversial") neutral. The procedure is explained, it is not pretty, but this only underlines why we should know what is at stake. We might be told why such a distasteful sounding procedure is deemed required. I think this is a serious concern, especially given how the matter is spun ... when someone I know heard the procedure discussed -- someone firmly pro-choice -- she was uncomfortable about the whole thing. Thus, we need to be told why it is done.
The article notes the fact the penalties are harsh as well as the fact that a woman Democratic governor signed it into law:
Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law criminal penalties for doctors who perform the surgery: fines of between $1,000 (€725) and $10,000 (€7,256), and jail terms of between one and 10 years. [The other amounts appear to be euros or pounds.]
We are told that few voted against the bill, a Planned Parenthood effort against it receiving a "chilly response from lawmakers." It bears noting the state is one of the most conservative in the nature on the matter, in which there was a serious attempt in the 1990s to ban most abortions. As with a similar measure in Guam, the courts made it clear that Casey could not be read that loosely. The final thing noted is the relative rarity of the procedure:
Nationwide, there are just a few thousand such abortions, according to rough estimates, out of more than 1.25 million abortions in the United States annually. Ninety percent of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not at issue.
The article is brief, given the nature of AP newsbreak sort material, so it arguably acceptable that we do not get a sense of the important of the procedure. Still, something is missing. What health reasons might there be to have them? What is the net harm to women in the "few thousand" cases covered here? Relevant details, but it might be argued not really the issue in an article of this nature. Still, something is lost when we read a piece like this without such context. A couple sentences might have covered it.
The article also notes another measure signed into law:
Blanco has also signed legislation requiring that all women seeking an abortion be notified that fetuses can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation, and doctors who perform the procedure to discuss the availability of painkillers for fetuses.
Supporters said the bill would provide important information to women seeking abortions - and that it could help stop abortions. Opponents say doctors do not agree on whether fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks.
This pro/con deal is not satisfactory. It is actually rather controversial to suggest that fetal pain is felt at twenty weeks, recent studies suggesting that the true point can be more like twenty nine weeks. What does "can" mean? Is that like the Yanks "can" make the playoffs? Is there some level of possibly there? Also, it should be noted that fetal painkillers can be dangerous to the women in various situations. The law itself might clarify the matter, but it does underline the important of even a small word to what is being discussed.
Anyway, the fact "opponents say" this is not really useful, since what would they "say?" It needs to be pointed out that such dicta has facts on its side, it is not just a matter of spin. The he said/she said problem of much coverage -- joined with the lack of the follow-up question, seen on liberal leaning shows too -- is a serious concern. This is a small example.
But, overall, the piece is satisfactory. The law is not. As to fetal pain, if there is clear evidence that such pain is reasonably possible, some sort of notification probably is legitimate. If full and adequate disclosure is supplied. Tricky business. Sherry Colb has noted that we cannot make this a selective enterprise. IOW, often we are not fully informed of the consequences of our actions. Thus, we are not required to sign a waiver when we buy animal products, including the possibility of buying them via places with more humane conditions. Other examples can be listed to fit your particular ideology and experience. The fact pregnant women are singled out is discriminatory. Also, as I said, when fetuses feel pain is quite unclear, and it should be noted that pain measures can harm the woman.
[Casey interpreted "informed consent" broadly, though earlier rulings did look warily at rules respecting such things as the "‘unborn child's' sensitivity to pain" deeming that "there was much evidence that it is impossible to determine" such things.]
So, one should be wary, especially at twenty weeks. Interference with private medical decisions is a tricky business, even when it might arguably be in some fashion a matter of informed consent.
---
* I tried to read a recent bio of the man, but it was too long and hard to slog through. I'm less able to deal with such things in the last year or two.