Anderson Cooper, Language Lawyering without Policy Analysis is Meaningless
Posted in Editorials on September 13th, 2012by Elizabeth
Tags: Feminism • Journalism • Politics
This is a few weeks old, but I think it’s important to sort this out as the Presidential campaign season continues. Anderson Cooper interviewed Debbie Wasserman-Shultz on his show and claimed that she, “lied” when she claimed in fundraising letters that Mitt Romney does not support a rape victims right to get an abortion. His basis for this claim is that Romney has, in the past said that he thinks abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest or when a woman’s health or life are threatened. However, he has also said many other things.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
As Rachel Maddow reports, Romney has gone back and forth on the idea of a health exception and also a rape exception. So if Cooper wants to say that Wasserman-Shultz is “lying” because she has only included Romney’s most extreme statements, he’s being obtuse. Language lawyering here is incredibly clueless when you consider the policy implications of even the most generous pro-choice interpretation of Romney’s position(s).
Wasserman-Shultz was correct in pointing out Mitt Romney’s support for personhood amendments, as it is in direct contradiction with his statement that he favors any exceptions at all. And she was also correct in tying him to his party’s platform. Cooper’s balking at this is nonsensical. If political party platforms are to be disregarded, then the parties themselves are meaningless. Does Anderson Cooper really think there are no policy differences between the two parties? How could that be possible? By rejecting what Debbie Wasserman-Shultz said about the Republican party’s official stance on abortion, Cooper is picking and choosing what statements he will and won’t hold Mitt Romney to. Why would someone do this? The only reason I can think of is that “Liberal Democrat Woman caught in lie!” is a bigger story than “Mitt Romney flip flops again.” That kind of intellectually dishonest pandering is a great disservice to viewers.
Beyond the obvious, what Andersoon Cooper is missing is that rape exceptions are bad policy by design and are pretty much written so that Americans in the mushy middle can sleep at night, but in reality don’t actually allow rape victims to get abortions. This is yet another reason why Debbie Wasserman-Shultz wasn’t lying. A country where only rape victims can get abortions does not exist on this Earth. As Jesse Taylor explains, such a policy is unenforceable and would not work at all. The same is true for health and life exceptions. They end with women dying horrible deaths from sepsis. In South America, for example, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor cannot abort the pregnancy it until either the fetus dies or the fallopian tube ruptures.
Upon closer examination, the “exceptions” Cooper is insisting Mitt Romney advocates for don’t exist in reality, even when they are stated as a goal by politicians. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is right that Mitt Romney’s position is extreme and would take away women’s access to abortion in almost all cases. Anderson Cooper owes her and his audience an apology.
September 13th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Stop fudging for the DLC. Has Romney ever said he opposes an exception for rape, incest, or threat to the life of the woman? It is especially difficult to believe that Romney is anything but pro-choice considering that he only changed his position in order to seek the Republican presidential nomination.
Let’s be clear about who Wasserman-Schultz is — a congresswoman and the chairperson of the DNC who, when first asked about the so-called “scandal” regarding Rep. Weiner, dismissed it as a personal issue for him, as any reasonable person speaking off the cuff would do. But after the party establishment decided to throw Weiner under the bus, Wasserman-Schultz made the talk show rounds calling for Rep. Weiner to resign, comparing his legal picture-sending to Sen. Vitter’s illegal hiring of prostitutes and former senator John Ensign’s web of corruption. So we know that she’s lacking in credibility.
Obama supporters such as yourself and the shills on MSNBC are desperate to keep focus on the abortion issue because it is the only major one on which Obama and Romney have an *arguably* significant difference. After all, when I list some 15 key matters on which Obama and Romney are practically (if not exactly) the same, your response is always and simply, “Are they the same on abortion?”
What you all don’t want for voters to do is judge these men on their records rather than on their campaign words, or to even judge their supposed views taking into account what a president can do. A president cannot take it upon himself to illegalize abortion. You keep supporting the Senate Democrats — leave it up to them to filibuster far-right judicial nominees and anti-choice legislation. I don’t hear any of you reminding people that overturning Roe v. Wade would merely return this question to the states rather than ban abortion nationally.
As Cooper later pointed out, Shirley Temple — I mean, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz went from alleging that Romney must agree with everything in his party’s platform to pathetically trying to distance Obama from the amendment he actually requested to be inserted into the DNC platform. She also claimed this amendment was passed with a two-thirds vote. All this further deteriorates her credibility.
“Does Anderson Cooper really think there are no policy differences between the two parties? How could that be possible?”
Concluding that there is little policy difference between the *major* parties — stop pretending there are no other parties — could be possible from examining the record. That’s why Raeshill Maddow, Ed Shill, and Al Shillton devote their programs to discussing Republicans’ gaffes, polls, endorsements, etc. rather than what Obama and Romney’s actual policies are. And of course, MSNBC offers no reporting on the two other presidential nominees who are on enough state ballots to hypothetically win. THAT is what’s a great disservice to viewers.
Ever since Obama started running for president, his supporters have urged me to pick his rhetoric or their wishful thinking over his record. Frankly, I was vindicated in judging him on his record. So I judge Romney on his as well. You may support Obama, but regarding the range of issues that should be important to you, Jill Stein is the candidate who supports you.
September 13th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
As stated in the post – yes. When he said he supports personhood amendments.
Also, as explained in the linked NPR article, his spokesperson has said that he does not support a health exception. And as also stated in that article, he vetoed a law requiring that the morning after pill be made available to rape victims in Massachusetts hospitals because of the chance it could disrupt implantation. If he doesn’t support the right of a rape victim to prevent pregnancy, or to use his words, to “terminate life after conception” how could he support a rape victims right to an abortion?
No, but he can sign bans making it more difficult, like George W Bush did with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He also appoints supreme court justices.
Because when 87% of counties don’t have an abortion provider and several states only have one or two clinics, every clinic counts to keep access available. I’m not going to abandon women who live in states with an anti-choice minority.
This is a warning. I will not tolerate remarks on my blog which attack someone based solely on their appearance. Keep it up and you will be banned.
September 14th, 2012 at 2:06 am
So apparently, Romney has not specifically said he opposes such exceptions. As Bush would say, you “…DISREGARDED…” what I wrote about how as long as the Senate Democratic caucus has 41 seats, they can block anti-choice legislation and judicial nominees. Again, federal judges and justices are nominated, not appointed.
In light of these facts, and Obama’s history of caving on critical issues as well as outright opposing explicit Constitutional rights, why does his current pro-choice stance cancel out, in your view, everything he’s doing wrong, including his indifference to the imminent threat to human civilization posed by climate change?
Your threat shows that you’re tired and you’re DESPERATE to win, so much so that you’re willing to simply eliminate dissent based on your personal assumptions and stretched interpretations.
September 14th, 2012 at 7:37 am
Now you are doing the exact same kind of language lawyering that Cooper is. “I support exceptions” and “I support personhood amendments” are inherently contradictory statements because personhood amendments outlaw abortions in all cases.
Also, you are ignoring what I explained about how laws with “exceptions” don’t actually allow people to get them.
It doesn’t. But it’s extremely important to stop people who don’t believe that women are people from gaining power. Anti-choice politicians are seeking to restrict access to abortion and have been saying that contraception is on their list for the past twelve years at least. Bodily autonomy is a basic and essential right, and that’s why we fight for it.
This is your second warning. It’s incredibly bad form to go to someone’s blog and leave a comment longer than their post. Now you are insulting me? One more time and you are gone.
September 14th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Why aren’t you dedicated to stopping people who infringe upon many other Constitutional rights from winning? Obama routinely violates Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VIII and XIV. He also routinely disregards additional parts of the Constitution, such as Article I Section 8, Article II Section 3, and Article VI paragraph 2.
Considering that the job of the president is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” why would you vote for a presidential candidate who is blatantly unwilling to do that? Why is the national right to abortion more important to you than the survival of the rest of the Constitution and the long-term survival of human civilization?
It would take a particular and unlikely chain of events for Roe v. Wade to be overturned: the election of Romney, the death or resignation of a pro-Roe justice, the nomination of an anti-Roe person, the allowance by the Senate Democrats for that nominee to be confirmed, the case then coming before the Supreme Court, and every Republican-nominated justice voting as expected.
Yet, the myriad Constitutional guarantees I have referenced have been trashed for 11 years now, with no end offered by Obama or Romney. Why do you care more about the hypothetical infringement upon one right for some Americans than about the present and obvious infringement upon many other rights for potentially all people under US jurisdiction?