Today's Paper Search Latest Core values App Traffic map In the news #Gazette200 Drivetime Mahatma Listen Digital FAQ Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles/Games Archive

Who says American editorials don't take stands these days? Even with editorial boards diluting real writing--attention must be paid!--sometimes editorials can take a line. Although the subject would have to be something on which everybody on a standard editorial board can agree. Like guns or Donald Trump.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, how about abortion, too? Most editorial boards, especially at the bigger newspapers, can agree on that. Abortion should be . . . rare.

We love that line. Who could disagree with it? The preacher in Arkadelphia and the folks at Planned Parenthood all say the same thing. "Abortion should be rare" isn't the issue. Should it be legal?

The country is divided, and how. Some folks think that abortion is the killing of a child in the womb--and if that's not the definition of "the least of these" we don't know what is. Others might think that abortion is just the removal of some fetal tissue, no bigger deal than the removal of any other unwanted growth.

The folks running the editorial page at The Los Angeles Times have their own thoughts. And we've published them nearby. It's been a while since an editorial coming from one of the coasts raised eyebrows. But when we saw this thing on the wire Friday, we had to reprint it today. You have to hand it to the editorialists. They may be wrong, but they're not in doubt.

The theme of the piece seems to be that states should stop passing anti-abortion laws. Or rather, unconstitutional anti-abortion laws. But how tell if a law is unconstitutional until it goes before the courts? Should the 50 state legislatures send permission slips to the various federal courts before each session to find out in advance which laws will stand?

Lord a-mighty. Where to start with this editorial? How about at the beginning:

The Times calls the various anti-abortion laws passed by the several states "unnecessary battles." Really? These legislatures were elected by We the People, and voters are experts at what they think. And many of us, especially out here in flyover country, think abortion should in the very least be limited. In several ways: By age of the child; excuse us, fetus. By safety of the mother, which is why Arkansas demanded doctors have admitting privileges at hospitals. And other limitations: Many don't think aborting a child on account of her gender is copacetic, either. Or ending a pregnancy because the child may be imperfect.

If there have been a "staggering" number of anti-abortion bills passed of late, as the paper says, then somebody must think the issue is important. Unnecessary battles? Says you.

Our editorial friends out west also say the Texas law requiring admitting privileges is "notorious," then says the courts have allowed similar laws to stand. Uh, then are the courts notorious too? Or are they just allowing notorious laws to stand? The head swims.

One more confusing sentence: "Of more immediate concern than a broad Supreme Court ruling are the incremental state restrictions that manage to survive court challenges." Or, to put it another way, the states in which the people are mostly opposed to abortion are trying to find which laws can stick. And many laws do. This is of immediate concern to The Times. To some of us, it sounds like the 50 laboratories of democracy at work.

The Times says it is "unconscionable" that some states obstruct access to abortion--and if any laws get through the judicial gatekeepers, they only did so because the states cloaked their motives with "fake concerns" about health and safety. The Times is also clairvoyant! Who knew?

The editorialist, like any good writer, throws a kicker in at the end: "Abortion rights advocates must continue to challenge these laws in court, the judiciary must defend its critically important 50-year-old precedent and, ultimately, opponents must accept that abortion is a constitutional right that is not likely to go away."

Opponents must accept abortion-on-demand?

No, we mustn't.

Life isn't an outrage. It's a gift. Troublemakers who feel that the American Way of Death should be checked, when at all possible, probably wouldn't take it too kindly if our elected officials tiptoed quietly by. We'd like them to represent their constituents, not ignore them. To some of us, "incremental state restrictions that manage to survive court challenges" can also be described as "laws." Constitutional ones at that.

Oh, well, maybe it's good that The Los Angeles Times at least came up with an editorial that the rest of us would like to read. A foaming, sputtering, desk-pounding editorial about those bad apples in the lesser states beats the usual naval-gazers most newspapers publish.

Just call it partial-truth editorializing.

Editorial on 01/07/2019

Print Headline: California dreamin'


Sponsor Content

Archived Comments

  • GeneralMac
    January 7, 2019 at 10:26 a.m.

    Seems the Arkansas Democrat Gazette didn't like my post about the United States Supreme Court upholding the ban on partial birth abortion.

    Seema all it took was a pro-abortion liberal to complain that my description of partial birth abortion upset them.

  • RobertBolt
    January 7, 2019 at 10:39 a.m.

    When anti-choice agitprop rises to the level of offending even this paper's standards, you know you definitely went too far.

  • LRCrookAtty
    January 7, 2019 at 10:44 a.m.

    LOL...only snowflakes on here have opinions removed, because their feelings are hurt!

  • RobertBolt
    January 7, 2019 at 10:55 a.m.

    I did not request its removal, buy I agree Fake is an anonymous snowflake.

  • LRCrookAtty
    January 7, 2019 at 11:04 a.m.

    Post was pointing out that a "snowflake" reported it, not that you did. However, given your quick response, you must assume you are a snowflake, or at least been referred to as one.

  • RobertBolt
    January 7, 2019 at 11:28 a.m.

    If an anonymous troll like lrlaw is only brave enough to call an alleged snowflake a snowflake from behind a mask of anonymity, I must ask what sort of creature fears a snowflake?

  • LRCrookAtty
    January 7, 2019 at 11:39 a.m.

    LOL...Good one, RB!

  • 23cal
    January 7, 2019 at 12:34 p.m.

    About "What is that 23? Having unprotected sex, or just the inconvenience of an untimely pregnancy?
    The result is the same. Why even ask, when you really don't care? Oh, by the way, sometimes protected sex results in pregnancy, and I don't see you making exceptions for those instances, so it really doesn't matter to you. It's just an excuse you throw in.
    About "People will still murder, even though there are laws against such. Should we legalize murder, so that it will be cleaner and safer?"
    Of course we shouldn't legalize murder or robbery.
    The reality is that women WILL have abortions, and that making them illegal instead of safe will result in great damage to women, and it won't stop abortions. How sad this is what you not only embrace but also advocate instead of taking the actions which we know will result in vastly reduced abortions and will support women's health at the same time.
    About "Also, as to the statement above, the difference is that the animal does not have enough intelligence to not be caught in the trap, the woman knows exactly how to NOT get pregnant. You make a man PAY for his MISTAKE."
    Ah, yes the old standard "Don't have sex if you're not willing to have childbirth", since that is the one exact way to not get pregnant. Your demand that my wife and I not have sex because we don't want to have a childbirth for whatever reason: financial and physical inability to raise one, mental and emotional health of my wife, physical health hazards from pregnancy and childbirth, or whatever is a nonstarter, and pretty damned presumptuous.
    Aren't you one of the ones who always clamors that we don't need more gun laws because people will get guns anyway? Try applying that to abortions.

  • RobertBolt
    January 7, 2019 at 1:19 p.m.

    Well said, 23Cal.

  • LRCrookAtty
    January 7, 2019 at 3:24 p.m.

    23..."...The reality is that women WILL have abortions..."
    The point is that this is a moot argument. Just because people will commit a crime or do something immoral (such as murder) does not mean we should make it legal. For the life of the mother? Sure. For rape and incest? Maybe, I personally do not think it is okay, but never been in that situation. On demand, because she made a mistake? Never. If a true poll was taken with those choices I guarantee you that a large percentage of Americans would not choose to make abortion on demand legal. The problem is that poll takers do not ask questions to get true results. They set the answers up in a way that the data can be skewed to fit their means (and I mean both the right and left leaning polls).