Note to Women: Don’t Think! Ross Douthat Is Here to Do It For You


How is it that people who traffic in discredited data and information get a regular column on the op-ed page of the New York Times?

I don’t know, but Ross Douthat does.
And apparently he also knows better than women, doctors, judges, juries and a range of other people what the real evidence is about abortion and what Dr. Tiller really did. Moreover, he is here to tell us what is morally right and wrong.

Women, take off your shoes, get knocked up, and go back to the kitchen, ’cause Ross will tell us everything we need to know and the world will be a better place.  Remember when the Bush Administration told us that "they would create the reality and we would just report on it?"  Well the far right is there to continue the job, compliments of Douthat and the others in the male pontificator commentariat.

Take today’s piece in the New York Times regarding abortion.

Douthat first concedes that maybe (just maybe) some of Dr. Tiller’s work was morally ok according to Douthat’s standards.  Then, he basically reverts to the "Tiller was a secret monster" myth by recycling old and completely discredited rumors that Tiller performed late-term abortions for no reason circulated by completely discredited sources, thereby ensuring he maintains his street cred with the right-wing mythmakers. 

Finally, he does exactly what the current cult of male pontificators have been doing all week.  First suggesting now that it is undeniable that some abortions are "acceptable" because, as they now must concede, sometimes a woman’s life or health might actually be at risk and some fetuses actually will die at birth or are already dead in the womb.  But….underscoring they still think–in their infinite wisdom–that really some of these late-term abortions must still actually be purely elective (never mind the overwhelming evidence), and all "elective" abortions (read all abortions) should now be called into question and subject to "reasonable regulation." In other words: the only acceptable abortions are those done for the real reasons according to Douthat and friends.

Over the past week, as women (and their partners) across the country have broken their silence on the heart-rending tragedies of their own late-term abortions–stories of catastrophic fetal anomalies and profound disability among them–most of the male pontificators–the Saletans, Waldmans, and Sullivans among them–have finally had to acknowledge what any real objective journalistic investigation would have revealed long ago: that, hey, maybe in fact real women (with their partners or husbands, families, and clergy in cases where that applies) actually face these circumstances.  Maybe they haven’t been lying after all!

But then, Douthat, who apparently can’t totally accept that many, many people see Dr. Tiller as a moral, ethical and courageous hero, goes on to try to discredit him through innuendo.

Douthat writes:

Tiller did abortions in third trimester, when almost no one else
would do them – which meant, inevitably, that he handled the hardest of
hard cases. He performed abortions on women facing life-threatening
complications, on women whose children would be born dead or dying, on
women who had been raped, on “women” who were really girls of 10. His
Wichita, Kan., office, barricaded against protesters, was reportedly
lined with thank-you notes.

Over the last week, there’s been an outpouring of testimonials,
across the Internet, from women (and some men) who lived through these
hard cases. They help explain why Tiller thought he was doing the
Lord’s work, even though that work involved destroying something that
we wouldn’t hesitate to call a baby if we saw it struggling for life in
a hospital bed. They help explain why so many Americans defend his
right to do it.

But then comes the caveat of innuendo and disproven rumor.   Douthat writes:

But such narratives are not the only story about George Tiller’s
clinic. He was a target of protests — and, tragically, of terrorist
violence — because he performed late-term abortions, period. But his
critics were convinced that he performed them not only in truly
desperate situations, but in many other cases as well. Over the years,
they cobbled together a considerable amount of evidence — drawn from the state’s abortion statistics, from Tiller’s own comments, and from a 2006 investigation — suggesting that Tiller abused the state’s mental-health exemption to justify late-term abortions in almost any situation.

The operative words here would be:

"Story" as in fables.

"Critics" as in members of the anti-choice lunatic fringe who have claimed all along that Tiller was doing late-term abortions for fun and frolic.

And "cobbled together…evidence," as in the "evidence" about links between abortion and breast cancer (discredited by actual scientists), connections between abortion and mental health (discredited by actual clinicians) and abortion and infertility (discredited by actual Ob-Gyns), among the range of other evidence offered to us by those credible folks at the American Life League, Operation Rescue, and numerous others. 

You know….those credible sources of evidence.  

Douthat then goes on to write:

We may never know how many of George Tiller’s abortions were performed on healthy mothers and healthy fetuses. But whatever the verdict on Tiller’s practice, most abortions in the United States bear no resemblance whatsoever to the hardest third-trimester cases.

Which healthy women and which abortions are we talking about here?  Legal first or second trimester abortions? Because those are legal and generally not restricted (except economically and by lack of access to services), and here is where the whole issue is conflated.  By talking about abortions generally, and claiming that Dr. Tiller and others perform abortions generally (surprise!), it is easy to then just conflate abortions performed where no indications are required–remember, again, elective abortion is legal in this country under current law until a certain point–and those that were performed in the later terms of pregnancy under strict regulation by law in Kansas. To wit: If you talk about having performed abortions, you must be talking about having performed later-term abortions for no reason!

Douthat is right: Most abortions in the United States bear no resemblance to late-term abortions. Again, (and again, and again) 90 percent of all abortions occur
before 12 weeks.  That is a good thing.  The earlier the abortion, the easier it is on the woman and the less risky the procedure.  Moreover, it is clear that no one willingly goes through an entire pregnancy only to seek termination in the last trimester barring seriously extenuating circumstances.  And there is, as Roe states, a compelling interest at that point in balancing the rights of the woman in that period against the rights of a viable fetus.  The issue is still: who gets to decide what those exenuating circumstances are in the case of a later abortion and in particular third trimester abortions?  Women, and their partners and their families, under the conditions set forth by the state.  That is why we have laws governing late-term abortion, as ideologically-driven and misguided as some of them nonetheless are. In Kansas, where Dr. Tiller practiced, that decision was left to a woman, her doctor and at least two other doctors to confirm the diagnosis.  No one got there easily as the many stories that continue to be written show.

But Douthat’s comment is intended to divide between what he now feels might be "legitimate" abortions and the "rest of them" and then goes on to imply we should regulate all abortions.

Douthat writes:

Indeed, the argument that some abortions take place in particularly awful, particularly understandable circumstances is not a case against regulating abortion. It’s the beginning of precisely the kind of reasonable distinction-making that would produce a saner, stricter legal regime.

This is revealing and I think we should all brace ourselves for the cultivation of this argument….indeed the flipping of a long-standing argument put forth by the male pontificators who have been arguing against late-term abortions because they were sure these were "elective" but now see undeniable evidence of "justifiable cause" when the woman’s life is at risk or the fetus is dead or seriously disabled, but who may now argue, as Douthat does inherently, that "elective abortions" (read all other abortions) are the whimsy of irresponsible women.  

Wait for it.

Douthat’s swipe at Tiller is disingenuous for several reasons.  First, no abortion for any reason including the life
of the mother is acceptable to fanatical anti-choice groups.  Douthat, if you read between the lines, suggests that no abortion is acceptable to him unless there is a threat to the woman’s life.

Second, he uses the term "abortion" as a broad brush to perpetuate innuendo against Dr. Tiller that is long ago discredited by juries, medical professionals throughout the country and women and men who sought his services.  I have no idea how many first trimester abortions Dr. Tiller might have performed.  But that is beside the point because that is legal and not in question.  But to say he performed and talked about performing "abortions" generally and then to imply that means he actually peformed late-term procedures without justification is bad journalism at best and intellectually dishonest.

It also flouts the evidence.  Kansas has very strict laws governing late-term abortion, and Dr. Tiller was several times accused and never found guilty of any violation of the law.  Ever.  He was most recently subjected to this harassment by a politically motivated Attorney General who failed earlier this year to convict Tiller of anything.  So exactly which evidence is it that has been cobbled together and by whom specifically that Douthat feels compelled to place on the op-ed page of the New York Times without examination or critique?  Luckily, for him, it appears his position does not require he actually provide evidence….just allude to it.

I won’t even bother here to take on Douthat’s disingenuous disposition on dilation and extraction abortions–misleadingly branded by the far right with another term that you all know and which bears so little relation to the actual medical practice I won’t force myself to legitimize it by repeating it here–nor his obvious lack of thought on how the complete politicization and politically motivated efforts of a few led to bans on a medical procedure safer for many women undergoing later-term abortion than any other procedure.  Understanding those issues clearly are too much of an intellectual exercise for Douthat.

But what I have learned from watching the reactions of guys like Douthat is how little they listen, and how little they learn, even when faced with overwhelming evidence.  I do know that pro-choice advocates have to re-energize our efforts to keep all abortions safe and legal, because the consequences, facts, and realities of last week’s events apparently still have not sunk in among many in the so-called intelligentsia.

 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • amanda-marcotte

    Really should be ashamed of themselves.  With this column, Douthat really shows that he’s perfectly willing to use this perch to amplify the perverse obsession with young women having sex without his permission. He clearly thinks he has a duty to take the most paranoid, misogynist beliefs of the conspiracy theory right, and dress it up to sound almost not-crazy.  He also tried to mainstream the paranoid myth about how Planned Parenthood is a secretive profit-making company that makes all its money off abortion, and therefore its attempts at preventing unintended pregnancy must be lies, lies I tell you!

     

    Honestly, I think for men like Douthat, it just seems impossible that anyone could actually care about women’s health and happiness and work towards that goal.  He doesn’t care, so why should anyone else?

  • joe-sonka

    thanks Jodi

  • invalid-0

    Nothing like a conservative white, Catholic male telling women he’s never even met what they should do and how they should think.

    http://tinyurl.com/nja6w8

  • invalid-0

    Douche-hat. Perfectly named.

  • invalid-0

    My niece just lost her baby boy. They went in for a 20 week ultrasound to see if it was a boy or a girl. What they discovered was a nearly total lack of amniotic fluid.

    The baby had one cyst-riddled, non-functional kidney. Without amniotic fluid, the other organs will not develop properly if at all. The baby, with its strong heartbeat, had no chance of suviving for very long after birth.

    More than that, the chance of infection for the mother in such cases is very high.

    My niece chose to induce labor, b/c that would allow them to do an autopsy and better determine what went wrong. Inducing labor at 22 weeks is an abortion, though no one has called it that. A 22 week fetus with no abnormalities cannot survive outside the womb.

    This has been devastating for our family, but I bring it up here b/c my niece was healthy. Her son lived for 45 minutes after birth, and died in his loving parents’ arms.

    My niece fits neatly into the “life/health of the mother not at risk” box, b/c she wasn’t suffering from an infection. Yet. Would it be better for her to continue a doomed pregnancy until she had a raging infection that threatened her health and future fertility? Better for whom?

    Who has the right to decide what a woman should do in this situation–where a wanted baby is doomed to death?

    The woman, with advice from her doctor, that’s who. No one else has any right to be involved in such a private painful affair.

  • invalid-0

    Anonymous, I’m so sorry about your niece. I hope she remains surrounded by love and good thoughts (please convey mine to her).

    You ask the right question — who has the right to decide? Unfortunately, the Douthats, Terrys, Sullengers, and O’Reillys of the world think they know best for everyone. If they were just blowing their hot air, that’d be one thing. But they’re the movement that takes a Scott Roeder to their collective bosom, nurtures the monster in him with their incendiary speech and actions, but then stands back and says, “not us!” when their creation performs as expected (and secretly desired).

  • http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

    Thank you so much for a great article and for exposing Douthat’s lies and distortions. He is a disgrace to the journalistic profession in general and to the New York Times in particular. To use a tragedy such as Dr.Tiller’s murder to advance one’s own patriarchal worldview is beyond wrong. The irony is that people like Douthat are the ones who love to use the word “morality.”

  • invalid-0

    For your niece and for your family. My great grandmother almost died because back in her day, when her twins tragically stopped growing and moving and died inside of her just into her last month of pregnancy, there were NO doctors who would help in these situations. She had to wait until her body delivered them naturally, and she almost died of blood poisoning and was not ever right again afterwards mentally. I am glad that women today can be spared that kind of fate with the medical advances of today, if only right wing nuts would let them get the care that they need and deserve and stop interfering with doctors and their patients. Thank you so much for sharing your story with us. I am sure that your niece will heal physically and mentally, and that you will be a great (as in wonderful) great aunt soon. : )

  • invalid-0

    I suggest that all doctors who deal with prostate problems for men be picketed. They may be killing sperm and thus prevent a possible fertilisation!

    If you think this is ridiculous, then recognize the anti-choice movement for what it is: hatred of women, pure and simple. They have no regard for women, and are even trying to eliminate the birth control/abortion prevention option! Sick!

    Thanks for a great piece exposing the slippery slope. These men–and women–need only remember that they have a generous (in some cases, TOO generous) woman to thank for their existence. And they think that they have the right to restrict the beings that gave them life to begin with. I wouldn’t bite that hand.

  • invalid-0

    Current law already makes reasonable distinctions, that was the whole point of the division into trimesters in Roe. Those distinctions, however, are based on medical facts, and don’t include ‘who were you having sex with and why’ which this guy apparently thinks is the REALLY important information on which distinctions should be made. Personally, I don’t think it’s any of his business. It’s pretty revolting to consider pregnancy and babies to be some sort of punishment for having sex.

  • invalid-0

    that Pollywong said it all!

  • invalid-0

    You did a wonderful job, Jodi. I’ve been seething about this column since I read it in the Times online. Happily, most of the comments from readers reflect disgust with Douhart, though none made their case as thoroughly and articulately as you. . . .

    I encourage you to send your column in the form of a letter to the Times’ public editor / ombudsman. The Times should be held accountable for its role in spreading demonstrably false allegations about a man who was murdered in part because of false allegations spread by and through the media. That they would do this *after* he was murdered flouts any conventional understanding of ethics. Dr. Tiller died, in part, because a great many people who could have quelled hate speech and conclusively corrected lies and distortions chose to shirk their responsibility to the truth and look the other way – shifting the entire burden to providers like Dr. Tiller and advocates such as ourselves. The Times – the so-called “paper of record” – must not continue to do this, at least not without protest.

  • invalid-0

    does this man want ALL women to suffer or only those who are unmarried? More of the late term abortions are performed on married or women in committed relationships than are early abortions, but this fact doesn’t seem to deter him. Just common sense would tell you that a women doesn’t carry an infant for 5 or 6 months and suddenly decide to abort it. From what I have read the largest number of late term abortions involve severe hydrocphalus, where the head is so enlarged by fluid that the fetus cannot be delivered vaginally or by C-Section without serious organ damage to the mother. I said fetus instead of infant because the brain has been forced back into the brainstem leaving the function of the brain with a capability of zero – certain death – to permanent life support. How many women died in the past trying to deliver a baby with a head the size of a soccer ball but no brain?

    When my cousin and her husband learned at 5 months their son had no lungs at all they were heartbroken. Their baby would have been dead within seconds of birth because he never would have taken his first breath. Having an abortion at 5 months left them so shaken that they were afraid to try again for several years because they feared another damaged baby and more heartbreak. Happily they now have 2 little boys who are completely healthy.

    Maybe all boys should have vasectomies at age 13. I mean, they can get them reversed when they get married, after all!