Late Edition: The Times Marches On

The New York Times, the intellectuals’ equivalent of a drug addict’s first hit of the day, prides itself on being the nation’s “newspaper of record.” That is true only in the sense once guilelessly captured by the late New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael, who expressed astonishment at Richard Nixon’s 1972 electoral landslide; after all, everyone she knew had voted for George McGovern. Like Kael, the Times didn’t know much about America then. It knows still less now, and much of what it thinks it knows it treats with utter contempt.

This is nowhere more apparent than on issues like homosexuality and abortion. As to the former, the Times is for all practical purposes the house organ of the homosexual rights movement. As to the latter, if there is an abortion anywhere, at any time, for any reason of which the Times disapproves, the fact has yet to be recorded in its pages. The editors are so utterly confident of the rightness of abortion—after all, everyone they know agrees they cannot imagine why any sane person might oppose it. Even so, “reproductive rights” are always threatened by malign forces (that would be women-haters, George W. Bush, the religious right generally, and the Catholic Church particularly) that beguile the unwary through seductive arguments. Roe v. Wade’s holy writ must therefore be reiterated from time to time lest faithful feminists stray from the fold.

So it was in late July that the Times ran three articles in four days to remind readers that the brave new world of abortion rights must not succumb to reactionary morals or cheap sentimentality. On July 18, “Television’s Most Persistent Taboo” worried that TV dramas celebrated childbirth at the expense of the abortion alternative. The Times Magazine on the same day brought us Amy Richards’s thoroughly modern feminist account of being pregnant with triplets (“When One Is Enough”). Her solution was “selective reduction,” the abortion industry’s quaint Victorian term for choosing which tiny humans will be designated to die.

The unmarried Ms. Richards “was tired of being on the pill, because it made me moody.” She and her boyfriend agree to have a child, but the bargain shatters at the prospect of three. For openers, she and her lover live in a fifth-floor walk-up. It gets worse. When informed that she will be on bed rest after 20 weeks, Ms. Richards, who earns her living by writing and lecturing on the college circuit, fears the loss of income. The gruesome wasteland of Staten Island stretches menacingly before her, replete with visions of “shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.” Need one say more? The decision is a no-brainer. “A part of” Ms. Richards, mind you, could “work around” all that. The real issue—and here we come to her major didactic point—is, “Do I want to?” In the event, she selectively reduces her pregnancy by two- thirds (identical twins, as it happens) and gives birth to the remainder. But the important point, gentle reader, is that she made the choice.

On July 22, another radical feminist, Barbara Ehrenreich, warned her sisters not to go wobbly (“Owning Up to Abortion”). Too many women, it seems, are “in denial about aborting ‘defective’ fetuses,” thinking it to be “on a higher moral plane than a run-of- the-mill abortion.” The distinction, she suggests, betrays a dishonest and dangerous sentimentality that undermines sexual liberation. She hectors: “Time to take your thumbs out of your mouths, ladies, and speak up for your rights.” Ehrenreich once wrote of her own two abortions that her “one regret” is that “they cost money that might otherwise have been spent on something more pleasurable, like taking [other] kids to movies and theme parks.” But not, presumably, to Costco.

Thus saith the gospel according to America’s newspaper of record.

Michael M. Uhlmann

By

Michael Martin Uhlmann (1939-2019) served as professor of government in the department of politics and policy at Claremont Graduate University and Claremont McKenna College. Prior to teaching at Claremont, Dr. Uhlmann was a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Vice President for Public Policy Research at the Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and taught at the George Mason University Law School.

Crisis Magazine Comments Policy

This is a Catholic forum. As such:

  1. All comments must directly address the article. “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter.” (Matthew 12:36)
  2. No profanity, ad hominems, hot tempers, or racial or religious invectives. “And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:32)
  3. We will not tolerate heresy, calumny, or attacks upon our Holy Mother Church or Holy Father. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
  4. Keep it brief. No lengthy rants or block quotes. “For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.” (James 4:14)
  5. If you see a comment that doesn’t meet our standards, please flag it so a moderator may remove it. “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” (Galatians 6:1)
  6. All comments may be removed at the moderators’ discretion. “But of that day and hour no one knows…” (Matthew 24:36)
  7. Crisis isn’t responsible for the content of the comments box. Comments do not represent the views of Crisis magazine, its editors, authors, or publishers. “Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God… So each of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:10, 12)
MENU