Friday, February 3, 2012
Somewhat to my surprise, I find the Boston Globe story referenced in Michael M's post just below to be rather more balanced than I'd expected. I would encourage all who read Michael's post to read the Globe story, to which Michael helpfully links, as well.
I am led by my reading of the Globe piece first to make a few observations, then a tentative suggestion.
On the observations score, first is that it seems to me not the Globe that is claiming Romnobama equivalence here, but C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League. Mr. Doyle figures prominently in a large photograph accompanying the story and is quoted, quite early on, as saying that '[t]he initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration.' Of course we hear cognate remarks all of the time from other conservatives, who routinely point to 'Obamacare's' precedent in 'Romneycare' and surely are not taken for defenders of Mr. Obama on that account.
Second, and in keeping with that last observation, is that there seems to me no defense of Mr. Obama at all in this article. Mr. Doyle himself indeed goes on to say, in the paragraph just cited, that 'President Obama's plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics.' It's just that Mr. Doyle is 'not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.' Mr. Doyle seems to me to be neither impugning Mitt Romney nor defending the Obama Administration's attack on religious freedom in the HHS decision. He's simply invoking a variant of the Clean Hands Doctrine in questioning an attack leveled by Mr. Romney against Mr. Obama, and again is far from the only conservative doing that these days.
The third thing I note is that the Globe story also makes plain at the outset that Mr. Romney sought first to veto the legislation upon which he was acting in requiring Catholic hospitals in 2005 to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual predation, and that he 'angered reproductive rights advocates' in so doing. That almost reads to me like a defense of Mr. Romney in face of the all too familiar conservative line taken against him.
Fourthly the story (a) notes conspicuously that plenty of conservative Catholics as prominent as Mr. Doyle give Mr. Romney the benefit of the doubt where his positional shifts on life questions are concerned, and (b) leaves the distinct impression - surely accurate - that the weight of American Catholic opinion is very much opposed to the Obama HHS's recent decision. If there's any 'negative focus' at work here, then, it seems to me it is fixed at least as (or more) directly upon Mr. Obama as (or than) it is upon Mr. Romney.
Finally the Globe story also, mais oui, quotes the reliably and, apparently, now likewise obligatorily quotable 'zany' new Catholic Newt Gingrich, who levels charges agains Mr. Romney more or less identical to those leveled by the Catholic Action League's Mr. Doyle and other conservatives. The only surprise occasioned by this particular quote is its not turning up until near the end of the story. Were the story meant for a hatchet job on Mr. Romney, a puff piece on Mr. Obama, or an equivalence piece on both, one might have expected the reliably incendiary Gingrich quote to figure more prominently at the beginning of the story, perhaps under a headline announcing that 'Gingrich Denounces "Massachussetts Moderate" Romney's Hypocrisy.' Accompanied, of course, by the mandatory photo of white-haired Newt at the podium, mouth obligingly open and brows suitably furrowed, pointing or wagging a finger toward the camera lens in the accustomed 'J'accuse' manner.
On balance, then, it doesn't seem to me that we ought to be indulging suspicions of the Globe for this story. Indeed if anything, it is rather refreshingly more balanced than much of what we find in the more familiar news organs, and worthy of praise on that account. Certainly it rides far lighter on the oft-purportedly opportunistic Mr. Romney than most 'liberals' and 'conservatives' tend to do.
What affirmative suggestion does all of this lead me to? Let's try this: If we can at all plausibly, let's assume that the journalists out there on balance are trying to be fair. Let's assume good faith in all cases save those where there's no plausible explanation save bad faith. After all, there is no shortage of good explanations for bad journalism. There is, for example, the all too familiar tendency to notice and play up events that play into some dopey demotically popular narrative. That's mediocrity, to be sure, but mediocrity's seldom bad faith. What is more, if we call journalists out on cliche and predictability, they're more apt to try to do better; for their pride in their craft, rather than their need to believe in their decency, will be what's evoked. Attributing bad faith, one suspects, is more apt to raise hackles and, with them, an unrepentent defiance.
A final point on my own state of faith here, for what little it might be worth: It happens that I am among those inclined to take Mr. Romney at his word when he speaks of his relatively recent 'life issues epiphany,' even finding the tale moving. That is so even as I literally pray Mr. Romney be far less sincere in his professions of new faith in the 'old religion' of 1928-style economic policy, which would be altogether calamitous for our nation and the world and accordingly must - must - be prevented. I am also among the many who were surprised by the recent HHS decision, which I believe Mr. Obama soon will recognize for the uncharacteristically oafish and destructive blunder that it was. I have no interest here, then, in either criticizing Mr. Romney or defending Mr. Obama. I've little doubt there'll be occasion enough for that soon.
The Boston Globe is apparently so intent on impugning Mitt Romney and defending the Obama Administration's attack on religious freedom in the HHS mandate that it isn't letting facts get in the way. Today's Globe has a story about Governor Romney's support in 2005 of a requirement that all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, provide sexual assault victims in an emergency room with Plan B contraception, which the Globe says is "similar" to the Obama Administration's current policy under the HHS mandate. The only problem with that charge of hypocrisy against Governor Romney is that the two policies are about entirely different things. When a number of states enacted requirements that all hospitals provide Plan B to sexual assault victims in the ER, the Catholic response was somewhat divided (summary article here), with the bishops of New York and Connecticut issuing statements agreeing to permit Catholic hospitals to follow the requirement. The USCCB Ethical and Religious Directives clearly permit administration of drugs to sexual assault victims to prevent pregnancy ("A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred," no. 36), though there has been considerable debate about whether hospitals should administer both an ovulation and a pregnancy test and whether Plan B acts as an abortifacient. See Daniel P. Sulmasy, “Emergency Contraception for Women Who Have Been Raped: Must Catholics Test for Ovulation, or Is Testing for Pregnancy Morally Sufficient?” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16, no. 4 (December 2006): 305-31, and Nicanor P. G. Austriaco, OP, “Is Plan B an Abortifacient? A Critical Look at the Scientific Evidence,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 7.4 (Winter 2007): 703–707. What is clear is that the HHS mandate isn't about emergency care of sexual assault victims in Catholic hospitals but is instead a requirement that a range of Catholic institutions cover contraceptives (including Ella, a drug with undisputed abortifacient properties) and sterilization procedures in their health insurance plans. The underlying issues in disputes about conscience protection are important, and obfuscating the facts in different cases doesn't help.
The brilliant Liz Lev has written a great piece in Zenit about modern schizophrenic attitudes towards people with Down Syndrome. On the one hand, "we" want to eradicate them. Liz writes:
The subject of Down syndrome has appeared many times in this column, much to do with the fact my son has Trisomy 21. The stories have rarely been cheerful, mostly because the prognosis for the future of people with Trisomy 21 is poor. With an 80% abortion rate for children detected with the condition in the womb, it seems that the modern world believes it can eradicate Down syndrome as if it were small pox or the bubonic plague.
My own experience in Italy is that doctors and institutions keep poor records of how people with Trisomy 21 develop. They seem uninterested in learning how to help future generations, and I fear that this is because they believe there won't be future generations.
ZENIT published a very worrisome interview last week with Jean-Marie Le Méné, president of the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation. Mr. Le Méné participated in the March for Life in order to draw attention to the plight of the unborn with Trisomy 21 in France, which now has a 96% abortion rate for children with Down syndrome.
On the other hand, though, "we" increasingly accept and embrace the physical beauty and charisma of kids with Down Syndrome in our cultural icons -- as fashion models and T.V. stars. Liz discusses a number of examples, writing: "But over the last few months I have heard several stories that bring promising news, perhaps a sign that Down is not out yet." She talks about the adorable six-year old star of Target & Nordstrom's ads, Ryan Langston; the Glee star Lauren Potter; and movie projects involving actors with Down Syndrome and celebrities such as Martin Scorsese, Roberto Benigni, Vanessa Paradis and Eva Longoria.
In my forthcoming article in Duke's Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems: Exposing the Cracks in the Foundations of Disability Law, I explore these sorts of "puzzling inconsistencies in contemporary society's attitudes towards the disabled," as diagnosed by Stanley Hauerwas: revealing "the pretensions of the humanism that shapes the practices of modernity."
