From The Signature Significance Files: This Is How Unethical ProgressiveWorld Has Become Over Roe’s Demise

Megan Fox, a conservative columnist and journalist, has behaved like an ethical journalist should regarding the convenient tale of the 10-year-old pregnant rape victim that has been reported as fact by multiple “respected” news organizations and, most recently, President Biden in his remarks when announcing an almost completely meaningless executive order “protecting” the right of abortion. Fox has tracked the bona fides of the claim and found them wanting.

She notes that after the Washington Post’s Trump-Deranged former conservative Jennifer Rubin wrote an inexcusable column about “forced births” citing the phantom 10-year-old, the Post’s “factchecker,” the reliably biased Glenn Kessler, issued a gentle analysis in which he said that he could find no verification of the story, which had as its single source a pro-abortion activist. When he called her for some kind of details that would show there was such a girl, the reply was, “Thank you for reaching out. I’m sorry, but I don’t have any information to share.”

Yet Kessler, good progressive soldier that he is, still refused to award the apparently fake story any “Pinocchios,” because it might be true. However, a newspaper, broadcast news reporter or President who states as a fact that which has cannot be confirmed as a fact is lying. By the “Factchecker’s” own stated standards, this kind of lie rates at least two or three “Pinocchios.” Saying or writing “This happened” when the speaker or writer cannot possibly know whether it has happened or not may be motivated by confirmation bias—they want the story to be true—rather than a desire to deceive, but they still know that the story cannot be accurately and fairly called true….yet, and maybe never.

At least Kessler, while putting on the metaphorical kid gloves he never used to examine a dubious Trump claim, did sort of do his job, stating that the poor, pregnant 10-year-old’s existence could not be confirmed with any facts whatsoever.

That unavoidable verdict was immediately attacked by the vast majority–I’d estimate over 75%— of over a thousand reader comments (so far) from the Post’s knee-jerk woke readership (yes, even more knee-jerk woke than New York Times’ readers). How dare Kessler challenge a serviceable pro-abortion fable?

Many engaged in deflections and goalpost shifting, like “Have you considered the highly sensitive nature of this case before you decided to cast doubt on the fact that this 10 year old did indeed need an abortion?” That’s not the issue! Why the facts might be hard to confirm, if they are facts, doesn’t change the key and unavoidable reality that the story can’t be confirmed. Others, risably, accused Kessler of being a right-winger, because, I guess, only an evil right-winger would balk at publicizing an extreme abortion dilemma that might shift public opinion just because it might be hooey:

Interesting to see the usual fools ready to hop onto the latest conspiracy theory.  Just because they don’t know the girl’s name…or weren’t there to observe the procedure… obviously didn’t happen. Everything from the flat Earth….the fake moon landing…President Obama’s birth certificate and JFK Jr. coming back to lead the Space Force to return Donald to the White House.
Called HIPPA…and human decency… and the last bit of privacy we have left

But all Kessler is saying is that there is no evidence besides an obviously interested party’s claims that the story is true. That is not the same as claiming it isn’t true. Here’s another: a commenter responded to a benign comment from another reader who simply stated, accurately, “No one has found any proof that this story was true. A viral story with no proof is repeated and repeated and now presumed to be fact without any proof” and exploded with…

There is all kinds of proof Republicans want to force 10 year old rape victims to carry their rapist’s fetus. OH and many more states are passing these hideous laws. Those who want to force 10 year olds to carry their rapist fetus have shown no proof this particular case is not true. So they post like this to avoid explaining why they think 10 year old rape victims should not be allowed to have an abortion. Do you think it is a gift from God?

I must interject that I doubt any abortion opponent can’t explain why a rape victim’s fetus is as much of a human life worthy of legal protections as a non-rape victim’s fetus. That’s easy. The tough challenge is the abortion fan’s obligation to explain why a growing human being’s right to live should be devalued because of its origins. In my experience, they can’t, at least without defaulting to “Human being? I don’t see any human being!”

The most rational and calm apologists for the story state all of the reasons it might be difficult to confirm, and these were the most popular of the Post reader comments critical of Kessler. But again—that’s not the issue. A story is either reliably confirmed, or it isn’t. Until it is confirmed, it is dishonest and unethical to publish it or state it as truth.

What the comments show is a that the entrenched abortion-supporting establishment believes that basic ethical principles that stand in the way of their mission most be ignored, denied, or breached. The ends justify the means.

That is consistent, to be fair, since the phrase accurately describes abortion itself.

19 thoughts on “From The Signature Significance Files: This Is How Unethical ProgressiveWorld Has Become Over Roe’s Demise

  1. Biden administration considering declaring public health crisis to make abortions available everywhere.

    So- “children are a disease that should be eradicated” is not the pivot I expected from the left. But here we are.

    And engaging in the very totalitarianism that the left just spun up the wildest dreams claiming SCOTUS was doing.

    • It’s the far end of the distribution tail but I could see it plausibly happening in a country the size of the US. Again, it’s low probability so there’s even more reason to confirm the facts before spreading the story.

      • It just struck me that saying the rape victim was twelve or thirteen would have eliminated the question even popping into my head.

  2. Many on the Left have got their feels hurt and are acting out.
    These folks are known to be irrational, violent, and at times borderline insane, and to say the reversal of Roe is a ginormous trigger would be quite an understatement.
    If certain special Leftys cannot freely murder a fetus anywhere at any time, how will their inherited or learned bloodlust be satisfied?

    Best be prepared.
    For example, if you notice a proglibot approaching, casually move to the other side of the road while making it seem as normal as possible.
    Do not make any sudden or unusual moves, so as not to startle or alarm.

    • They are angry, because they knew legalizing abortion on the Federal level would hurt them politically, so they didn’t. They had the supermajorities in the past, but believed revealing their extreme position on the matter would cost them votes. They hid behind Rowe’s flimsy excuse of a constitutional right. Now that Rowe has inevitably collapsed, they want to deflect blame by loudly claiming Republicans are the ones playing political games with women’s bodies. They are primarily angry at themselves, but accepting responsibility reeks of white privilege, so they have to blame someone else.

      It’s all rotting and sticking politics of the worst kind, all the way down.

  3. So, now doing good journalism is considered insensitive. I don’t think you have to put the person’s name out there to verify the story. You just need to find the actual source. This is REALLY basic journalism.

    I mean, if I claimed that Donald Trump threw his food at me at a restaurant 10 years ago, journalists should try their best to verify it. NPR has a very good framework on their website. Under a link about Accuracy, NPR has a guideline that states:

    “Be able to identify the source of each fact you report.”

    The article also says, “We should never be in the position of looking for corroboration after a report has been published or broadcast.”

    Abortion activists tend to be dishonest, so I would assume the 10 year old story isn’t true. However, that would be lazy reporting. If Joe Biden reports this story as fact, it enters the mainstream, and now it can be fact checked.

    My questions are:

    1. is it even possible for most ten year olds to get pregnant?
    2. What are the circumstances of this particular ten year old?
    3. How far along was the pregnancy (assuming there was one)?
    4. Why couldn’t the kid get an abortion?

    The abortion activist very well could have just planted this story. The Democrats then use it as a rhetorical tool to advance their agenda. Biden repeats it, and anyone who asks question is offensive because 10 YEAR OLD.

    It’s clever if this is what happened (in terms of Machiavellian politics).

    If this story is unverifiable or it’s too “sensitive” to fact check, then Biden shouldn’t be using it as a political tool. Keep the story out of the public conversation, or submit to actual fact checking journalism. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  4. Legal Insurrection has the Megan Fox post (in Twitter-bite format) as well as portions of the WaPo “fact check” story… Notable in the latter is the information that the “child abuse doctor” in OH contacted the IN doctor to report a 10-ye ar old who was “6 weeks and 3 days” pregnant; That report was made 6/27 (3 days post Dobbs ruling). So someone knows the exact date that the rape occurred.

    Also noted there (LI) is the lack of apparent police/investigative involvement of the original crime, nothing as to where in OH (if it was in OH) the notification came from or where the crime may have occurred. Did the IN doctor make notification to the authorities of the abuse of the 1–year old? Surely IN is not so backward that there are no mandatory reporting requirements for medical personnel.

    As to honesty…. How does the left get away with calling unrestrained access to abortion a “reproductive right? Isn’t an abortion, by definition, an absolute block to reproduction?

      • It’s a right to control reproduction once it’s left the station, ergo, it’s a “reproductive right.” I.e., a right “relating to” reproduction. Got it?

    • That last one is easy: a lazy SCOTUS justice on an ideological court unilaterally declared it a right in the teeth of the late Sixties/early Seventies “it’s a right to screw whomever you want whenever you want without consequences or responsibility, whatever gets you through the night, love is all around, hedonist, destructive culture raging at the time. Righteous, Man! And that made it a right, so al rational debate was cut off, and people who can’t tell the Constitution from an aardwolf got used to thinking of it as that. Next to Dred Scott, Roe was probably the most destructive SCOTUS opinion in history, and the Taney Court’s disgrace was better reasoned.

      • Come on, Jack. Stop mincing your words.

        (Just kidding. That’s the entire Roe saga in a very concise, lucid, entertaining nutshell. Bravo. Having come of age in the height of the sexual revolution, I’m just now beginning to come to terms with even a few of its impacts. Better late than never, I suppose. It was not a healthy time.)

    • Yes. Saw that today too.

      Also, I saw Jack say a “President who states as a fact that which has cannot be confirmed as a fact is lying.”

      This confirms Trump was lying about the election being stolen then correct?

      • No. Trump made it clear his statement is an opinion, and that opinion was a characterization. Opinions aren’t lies. Nor are characterizations, if the speaker believes them. Biden saying that a specific event occurred when he had no verification that it occurred is lying.

        And if “what about Trump” is all you’ve got, you’re out of your depth here.

        • And you need to read up on moral luck. If I tell everyone that there was a major pile-up on 395 today and I don’t know that is true, it’s still a lie even if it turns out there was such a crash. Same with Biden’s statement.

          • “Trump made it clear his statement is an opinion”

            No he didn’t. But let’s play your game…

            Trump stated his “opinion” as factual…Trump’s “opinion” is that he thinks it’s a FACT that the election was stolen.

            This is just a weird word game by you where the word “opinion” has lost all meaning.

            You can have the opinion that a restaurant is awful, or the opinion that we didn’t land on the moon.

            If you go around screaming, WE DIDNT LAND ON THE MOON, THEY FAKED IT I HAVE PROOF…that’s a statement of fact that is also your opinion.

            It’s Trumps opinion that the election was in fact, stolen.

            Are you seriously arguing that opinions can’t be stated as fact?

            When a prosecutor charges a person with a crime, you wouldn’t say “oh it’s just their opinion!” I mean sure, if you want to be pedantic, but normal people don’t use “opinion” in that way.

            Arguing Trump doesn’t think it’s a fact that the election was stolen is utterly ridiculous and silly.

            Anyone listening to his election fraud allegations knows he believes them to be factual.

            You need to explain why Trump saying “THIS HAPPENED” is different from Biden saying “THIS HAPPENED”

            Because it seems like the only difference is that you voted for one and not the other.

            • Again, simply deflecting to “Trump did it too!” is not a defense or an argument.
              Check the record; EA said from the beginning that Trump, as President, should not state that the election was stolen, or that he believes that the election was stolen. That role is for others. If he says—and I haven’t kept track of all the junk he has said on the topic, as he routinely engages in hyperbole and careless generalizations—that he has proof that the election was stolen (in the way he means, actual vote manipulation), then that IS a lie, and is the kind of statement that has gotten his lawyers in trouble. There is still a difference between an opinion and a flat statement as fact of a non-fact: Biden stated that a rape of a ten-year-old HAD been raped and HAD an abortion—actually emphasized that it really happened. You can’t call that an opinion. But if somehow you think it is mitigating for Biden that Trump stated as a fact that the election was stolen, go ahead. As I say, it was an unethical and irresponsible statement for him to make, so I’m not going to quibble further.

              However: deflecting to Trump when the issue is the current President is just transparent evasion. It is also especially irrelevant since Biden was supposedly going to be an honest exemplar in comparison to Trump, and he has made at least as many substantially dishonest statement as Trump did in a comparable period. It’s just that the news media hasn’t started an inflated inventory of them.

              And you don’t have the privilege of using snotty rhetoric with the host here, like “But let’s play your game…” It’s not a game, and if you disagree, which is fine, keep it respectful. And no, I am not bound by the same rules: you’re the guest. Read the comment policies. You get a warning, and this is it.

              Your prosecutor analogy is no good, incidentally. An indictment is an official act; to be ethical and legal, it MUST be supported by actual evidence, and sufficient evidence to justify a good faith belief that a jury can find the one charged as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So it can’t be only “an opinion” as a matter of law and regulation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.