Ignore the fact that there is no debate whatsoever on/over (the
NYT itself cannot seem to choose between the two
prepositions, using "the debate over health care" in the sentence
that immediate follows the headline) health care. Meaning, nobody
is, or even plausibly can be said to be, in a debate and
against health care. Nobody is opposed to health care
reform. People do debate the Democrats' horrible ideas about
health care reform.
Instead, focus on the author's (David D. Kirkpatrick) tone. He is
not reporting that the reform plans would lead to taxpayers
funding abortion, which is the source of controversy in the
debate he's referring to. He is not writing about whether
pro-lifers will thwart the aims of the "reproductive health"
crowd backing the reform plans. Instead, he writes about it from
the perspective that the relevant question is not whether
abortions will be publicly funded, but whether or not the
possibility that they might be is "complicating the debate."
In commemoration of this reportorial approach, I would like to
add the "Avril Lavigne" corollary to "opinions of the shape of
the earth differ" journalism.
"Opinions of the shape of the earth differ" journalism was given
its name by Paul Krugman in a 2000
op-ed about George W. Bush's alleged campaign trail
falsehoods. "If a presidential candidate were to declare that the
earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the
headline ''Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.'' After
all, the earth isn't perfectly spherical," Krugman wrote.
Today's NYT article falls neatly into that category.
Kirkpatrick bends over backward to make sure that both sides of
the debate are allowed to present their wildly divergent
depictions of reality as factual.
Regarding the current bill drafts, Kirkpatrick writes,
... [abortion] opponents say that is not good enough, because
only a line on an insurers' accounting ledger would divide the
federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies
would still help people afford health coverage that included
abortion.
On the other hand,
"The language of the compromise is very clear," said
Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, "it
prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions." (The
bills would also mandate the availability in each state of at
least one plan that covers abortion and at least one that does
not.)
So on the one hand, it's merely an accounting trick to say
abortion-inclusive plans aren't covered. On the other hand, it's
"very clear" that taxpayers funding abortions is prohibited.
Kirkpatrick makes no attempt to reconcile or examine these
mutually exclusive statements.
Instead, he, for the first time to my knowledge, invokes the
"Avril Lavigne Corollary." It's not that one side is right and
the other is wrong, or that one side is sincere and the other is
lying. It's just that it's all so...complicated. It's as if
Kirkpatrick is asking the pro-life crowd in the "debate on/over
health care," "why'd
you have to go and make it so complicated?"
About the Author
Joseph Lawler was formerly managing editor of The American Spectator. Follow him on twitter: @josephlawler.
