| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
Times Watch for
March 9, 2004
Changing The Subject:
From Partial-Birth To An Assault On Privacy
Robert Pear and Eric Lichtblau's story from Saturday, "Administration Sets Forth A Limited View on Privacy," is perversely impressive in the way it spins its ostensible subject--the Justice Department's attempt to enforce the popular new partial-birth abortion law--by turning it into a Bush administration attack on medical privacy.
The story opens: "In a sharp departure from its past insistence on the sanctity of medical records, the Bush administration has set forth a new, more limited view of privacy rights as it tries to force hospitals and clinics to turn over records of hundreds and perhaps thousands of abortions. Federal law 'does not recognize a physician-patient privilege,' the Justice Department said last month in court papers that sought abortion records from Planned Parenthood clinics in California, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington."
Pear and Lichtblau give the floor to fretting "privacy advocates," waiting until the 11th paragraph of the story to softly note the Justice Department isn't actually just seizing abortion records willy-nilly but has an actual purpose: "The Justice Department says it needs the records to defend a new law that prohibits what opponents call partial-birth abortions. Doctors and clinics have challenged the law, saying it bars them from performing certain medically needed abortions."
Pear and Lichtblau neglect the fact Justice is attempting to enforce the partial-birth abortion law passed by Congress and signed by the president, instead treating the action as a broken Bush campaign promise: "President Bush was elected on a platform that proclaimed support for medical privacy. In April 2001, he said he would protect 'the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private.'"
Of course, Bush also ran on a pro-life platform.
It's up to conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly, to draw out the actual issue involved: "[Ashcroft] is the former attorney general, governor and U.S. senator from Missouri, the Show Me State. To the abortionists he says, 'Show me why you claim it is 'medically necessary' to terminate the life of a partially born child.' The Justice Department has issued subpoenas for records about abortions performed by plaintiffs and their witnesses. When they ultimately take the witness stand to argue 'medical necessity' for their abortions, U.S. attorneys can cross-examine them based on their own records. No patient names will be revealed, as the government has already agreed to delete personal identifiers from the records. The issue is the conduct by the doctor, not the patient."
For the rest of the Times article on privacy-not-abortion, click here.
• Abortion | John Ashcroft | Eric Lichtblau | Medical Privacy | Robert Pear
The
Times' Turnaround on Civil Disobedience
After criticism from some
expected quarters (and some surprising
ones) on the Times' double standard on civil disobedience, the Times actually conducts a non-hostile interview with Judge Roy Moore, the
Ten Commandments judge.
In a remarkable turnabout (for the Times), conservative beat reporter David Kirkpatrick actually asks Moore for the Sunday Week in Review: "Some people have compared your act of civil disobedience to the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples by Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor. What do you think of that?"
For the rest of Kirkpatrick's interview with Moore, click here.
• Gay Issues | David Kirkpatrick | Religion
Still Missing the Soviet Union
Russian reporter Seth
Mydans has made a habit of missing the Soviet Union.
His Tuesday story on the Russian election, "Putin's Dubious Allure: 'He's Not Making Things Worse'" takes pains to note how much is missed from the days of Communist tyranny: "This is a nation shipwrecked by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when its structures and certainties were splintered and people were left, in the words of Lyudmila Surinova, who teaches embroidery, 'to swim on our own.' Job security and free vacations disappeared, along with subsidized housing, education, medical care and social services. 'Everyone was at the same level, and everyone was more or less poor,' said Viktor A. Borisov, who heads an office of constituent services for Mr. Putin's political bloc in Kostroma. 'But they knew they would get paid. They knew they would get their pensions and have a roof over their head.'"
Of course, there were extreme class differences in Soviet Russia--such as retail shops with quality goods in which only party officials were allowed to shop, while the rest of the population stood in line for hours for whatever low-quality sundries were available. And do the Russian people truly lament the "free" health care (along with low life expectancy and rampant disease) enjoyed under Soviet tyranny?
For the rest of Mydans' story, click here.
• Communism | Seth Mydans | Soviet Union
E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org