Banning abortion is increasing government regulation, no matter what the New York Times tells you
Banning abortion is increasing government regulation, no matter what the New York Times tells you
A Times puff piece portrays an abortion banner as an advocate for limited government.
The New York Times has another one of those gauzy profiles of conservatives it loves so much, this one focused on Erin Hawley1 and her attempts to ban medical care for women, which the Times absurdly frames as a part of Hawley’s lifelong opposition to government regulation. I swear I am not making this up.
Erin Hawley argued a case before the Supreme Court today, trying to get the Court to ban mifepristone, which the Food and Drug Administration approved a quarter century ago. Mifepristone appears on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines2 and is used in 96 countries. She is also, according to the Times, “currently helping the Idaho attorney general defend the state’s abortion ban from a challenge by the Biden administration” — all part of her goal of dismantling abortion rights:
Ms. Hawley and her infant daughter arrived on time, but her babysitter did not. In the middle of the meeting, the baby let out a wail.
As Ms. Hawley tells it, this moment encapsulated her purpose, both as a Christian mom and as a lawyer aimed at dismantling the right to abortion.
So Erin Hawley’s life’s work is banning abortion. Seems pretty straightforward.
Incredibly, the New York Times characterizes this as a principled effort to reduce government regulation and imposition of values on the American people.
The Times’ profile of Hawley opens with an anecdote about the Missouri resident challenging a California requirement that chicken cages have enough room for the animals to stand and to stretch. According to the Times, “The state where she taught, Missouri, sold a third of its eggs to California, and Ms. Hawley believed that a blue state had no right to impose its values and rules on Missouri’s farmers.”
Now, when I read that line, I assumed the Times was setting up a contrast between Erin Hawley’s professed belief that the “a blue state had no right to impose its values on Missouri’s farmers” with her efforts to impose her values on every woman in America. Instead it uses the anecdote to portray Hawley’s efforts to ban abortion as entirely consistent with her (supposed) lifelong opposition to government regulation:
Ms. Hawley views the cause as similar to her fights against government interference, rooted in her experience of ranch life.
[…]
Ms. Hawley’s particular background makes her ideal for this moment. Her longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state is well suited to speak to the current court’s conservative supermajority, which has welcomed cases challenging regulations on everything from herring fish to machine guns and, now, abortion.
[…]
Together [Erin and Josh Hawley] started the Missouri Liberty Project, “dedicated to promoting constitutional liberty and limited government.”
There’s just so much bullshit here. Banning abortion is not consistent with a “longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state.” The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority isn’t welcoming “cases challenging regulations on … abortion,” it is welcoming cases designed to impose regulations on abortion — like the one Erin Hawley argued today. And note that this bullshit is coming from the New York Times, in its own voice, not from Erin Hawley.
It is simply not honest to portray banning abortion as reducing government regulation. It is a lie; a dishonest attempt to square the conservative movement’s desires to control women and impose its values on the rest of the country with its rhetorical opposition to government regulation. The New York Times is lying to you. It is helping the anti-abortion movement spin bans on health care as anti-regulation, pro-limited-government efforts.
And the Times doesn’t quote, paraphrase, or even so much as hint at the existence of anyone who understands that banning abortion is inconsistent with reducing government regulation. Doesn’t quote, paraphrase, or even so much as hint at the existence of any critics of Hawley or the Alliance Defending Freedom, or anyone who takes issue with … well, this:
An evangelical believer who forefronts her identity as a wife and mother of three, Ms. Hawley works for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a powerful conservative Christian legal group. She represents the ideals of womanhood many in the anti-abortion and conservative Christian movement seek to elevate.
Does there exist any other perspective on “the ideals of womanhood” than that of the anti-abortion movement? Not according to this New York Times article!
Despite running roughly 1,800 words, the Times profile of Hawley didn’t include a single critical comment or observation about her, from anyone.
The Times did manage to acknowledge that opposing counsel in the mifepristone case disagrees with Hawley’s contention that mifepristone is dangerous to women. Which one of them is right? The Times doesn’t say, or give readers enough information to draw their own conclusions. Not because it’s ambiguous — just because the Times didn’t want to. The facts are clear, as the New York Times itself reported more than a year ago: “More than 100 scientific studies, spanning continents and decades, have examined the effectiveness and safety of mifepristone and misoprostol, the abortion pills that are commonly used in the United States. All conclude that the pills are a safe method for terminating a pregnancy.” The Times politely left that inconvenient little detail out of its Erin Hawley puff piece. The Times did, however, manage to find room to include a quote from the editor of Hawley’s “devotional book for mothers.” (The editor of Hawley’s book, you will not be surprised to learn, liked Hawley’s book.)
The Alliance Defending Freedom has an annual budget of more than $100 million. It doesn’t need the New York Times to carry its water, helping spin the most invasive government regulations as an anti-regulation, pro-freedom effort. And New York Times readers don’t need it, either. There’s enough bullshit in the world already.
Yep, she’s married to this guy:
WHO: “Essential medicines are those that satisfy the priority health care needs of a population. They are selected with due regard to disease prevalence and public health relevance, evidence of efficacy and safety and comparative cost-effectiveness. They are intended to be available in functioning health systems at all times, in appropriate dosage forms, of assured quality and at prices individuals and health systems can afford.”