Crosses the line on abortion ‘call to action’

SAN DIEGO — To prevent further erosion of the public’s trust, the media tasked with refereeing gladiator matches has to stay out of the arena. Recently, the Los Angeles Times editorial board stepped in it.

These are emotional times, and so it’s not totally unexpected that the institutional voice of the largest newspaper in California might be swept up in the emotion surrounding the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that appears to overturn the 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade. That landmark decision recognized that women have a federal right to an abortion — if they adhere to an elaborate trimester scheme that dictates when the procedure is constitutionally protected.

There are worst things than emotion, such as lack of emotion. As someone who has written more than 1,500 editorials in 10 years on editorial boards in both blue and red states, I like my opinion pieces with a dash of hot sauce.

I should also make clear that — although the Times’ liberal editorial board and I seem to have a disagreement about what distinguishes journalism from advocacy — we do agree on abortion. We’re both pro-choice. In fact, while I have long taken a centrist position on this issue — i.e., supporting a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body while also backing restrictions — I have, in the days since the leak, felt myself drifting further into the prochoice camp.

Given all that, I wasn’t at all bothered when the May 3 editorial said that Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. — who wrote the opinion — used “scathing, dismissive language” that “annihilates the constitutionally protected right of a woman to control her own body.” Nor was I the least bit troubled when the editorial shredded Alito’s reasoning that “because abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it must at least be a right that is grounded in the nation’s history and concepts of liberty before it can be worthy of constitutional protection” — which abortion is not, because it was largely criminalized throughout U.S. history. As the editorial noted, “It’s absurd that abortion rights can’t be protected today because male lawmakers criminalized it in the past.”

That cruise missile of common sense was a direct hit. I’ll allow

The editorial proceeded to note approvingly that the Democratic lawmakers that run the state legislature in California are “committed to getting a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that specifically protects the right to abortion here.” The editorial said, “That’s great. But it’s not enough.”

Oh dear. Right about there, I started to get nervous. How much further did the editorial board want to go? A few steps too far, it turns out.

Insisting that Alito was correct when he wrote in the draft opinion that “women are not without electoral or political power,” the editorial attempts to mobilize the like-minded. It’s time for women to “stand up to the elected officials who support curtailing their constitutional rights,” it says. And it’s time for anyone else who cares about individual rights to “see this draft ruling as a call to action.”

That’s the part that rubbed me the wrong way. It is not the job of a newspaper to issue a public call to action, rally the troops, and encourage people to go to the polls and advance a particular ideological or political agenda.

I can see how some people might get confused, because it is proper and customary for newspaper editorials to urge voters to cast their ballots in specific elections. Such as: “In next week’s mayor’s race, we urge a vote for Chuy Garcia. He’s the best choice.” Nothing wrong there.

But this is not that. A newspaper expressing support for the candidacy of a particular individual is one thing. Calling for a movement or pushing for a mass mobilization of voters to advance a specific political outcome is quite another.

After all, the title of the editorial included the phrase: “It’s time to stand up.” These aren’t the words of a neutral observer. It’s what you hear from a coach rallying his team. Is that the role of an editorial board? I don’t think so.

The Times chose the pro-choice side and assumed the role of the commanding general ordering the troops into battle. That’s not a good look for an editorial board, which should at least pretend there are two sides to every issue and which ought to be content to cover a war without becoming a combatant.

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and that a conservative newspaper had issued a “call to action” for “pro-life” voters to “stand up” to pro-choice elected officials and vote for lawmakers who want to end abortion.

An editorial like that would cross the line. And so does this one.