Daily Archives: April 8, 2006

Brave New El Salvadore

Posted on by

I’ve written before about abortion in Latin America. I’ve written about how abortion rates in Latin America are higher than rates in the U.S. in spite of the fact that abortion is illegal in most of Latin America. I’ve written about the approximately 5,000 Latinas who die every year from botched illegal abortion.

In this Sunday’s New York Times magazine, Jack Hitt focuses on one Latin American nation, El Salvador, which eight years ago criminalized all abortions. All of them, for any reason. Women can get a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison for getting an abortion. [Update: See correction to the Hitt article here.]

Physicians are under pressure to report any women who might have aborted to the proper authorities, on pain of prosecution —

“Many doctors are afraid not to report,” says Mira, the obstetrician I spoke to. This fear is heightened for doctors, she explains, by the fact that nurses also have a legal duty to report abortion crimes but are often confused about their obligation of confidentiality. So doctors are afraid that the nurses will report them for not reporting. “The entire system is run on fear,” Mira said.

The criteria for deciding whether a woman aborted sound like something out of The Crucible.

If the woman is “confused in her narrative,” Vargas said, that could well indicate that she’d had an abortion.

Vargas offered me an example. “Last year, in March, we received a 15-year-old who came referred from a hospital in an outer area,” she said. “She had a confused patient history. She had already been operated on and had a hysterectomy and had her ovaries taken out. She was in a delicate state, on respiratory assistance in intensive care. The doctors there said they had seen a perforation in the space beneath the cervix.

“This was around Eastertime last year, and the prosecutor’s offices were closed,” Vargas said. She had not seen any of the evidence herself, she said, but saw that the other doctors “had tried to call the prosecutor’s office, but it was closed. I came in, and on the chart what was pending was to call the police. So I called them.”

Courts can order vaginal inspections of women under suspicion. If a woman needs a hysterectomy after a suspected back-alley abortion, the uterus is sent to the Forensic Institute for examination. If the case goes to trial, the organ may be used as evidence against the woman.

El Salvadore’s laws are so insane physicians cannot even terminate an ectopic pregnancy before it becomes critical —

Consider an ectopic pregnancy, a condition that occurs when a microscopic fertilized egg moves down the fallopian tube — which is no bigger around than a pencil — and gets stuck there (or sometimes in the abdomen). Unattended, the stuck fetus grows until the organ containing it ruptures. A simple operation can remove the fetus before the organ bursts. After a rupture, though, the situation can turn into a medical emergency.

According to Sara Valdés, the director of the Hospital de Maternidad, women coming to her hospital with ectopic pregnancies cannot be operated on until fetal death or a rupture of the fallopian tube. “That is our policy,” Valdés told me. She was plainly in torment about the subject. “That is the law,” she said. “The D.A.’s office told us that this was the law.” Valdés estimated that her hospital treated more than a hundred ectopic pregnancies each year. She described the hospital’s practice. “Once we determine that they have an ectopic pregnancy, we make sure they stay in the hospital,” she said. The women are sent to the dispensary, where they receive a daily ultrasound to check the fetus. “If it’s dead, we can operate,” she said. “Before that, we can’t.” If there is a persistent fetal heartbeat, then they have to wait for the fallopian tube to rupture. If they are able to persuade the patient to stay, though, doctors can operate the minute any signs of early rupturing are detected. Even a few drops of blood seeping from a fallopian tube will “irritate the abdominal wall and cause pain,” Valdés explained. By operating at the earliest signs of a potential rupture, she said, her doctors are able to minimize the risk to the woman.

Hitt interviewed one woman serving a 30-year sentence whose three children are growing up without her. He describes young women chained to hospital beds and guarded by police. Clandestine networks, something like the Underground Railroad, help poor girls travel to abortion providers in other countries.

The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, the head of Human Life International, says “El Salvador is an inspiration,” an important victory for the “pro-life” movement.

Every now and then I run into a so-called “libertarian” who wants to criminalize abortion. You can talk to these lamebrains until you are purple, and they will not understand why criminalizing abortion limits the liberty and dignity of women.

Well, assholes, this is why.

Update: See also Scott Lemieux.

Top Ten Reasons Why Sy Hersh’s New Article Should Scare the Stuffing Out of You

Posted on by

Read, and weep:

10. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a whackjob who is determine to enrich uranium.

9. Our President, George W. Bush, has a messiah complex and is convinced that “saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

8. The Pentagon is already engaging in clandestine activities, called “force protection,” that can be classified as military, not intelligence, operations; e.g., preparing a battlefield. Such activities are not subject to congressional oversight.

7. U.S. military planners believe that bombing Iran will cause Iranians to rise up and overthrow the mullahs who rule them. Most Middle East experts think this notion is right up there with Cheney’s “Iraqis will greet us with flowers” delusion.

6. A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said: “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.”

5. The White House has been talking to members of Congress about Iran. However, the only ones they’re talking to are the same bunch who led the charge against Iraq.

4. “The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. ‘Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,’ the former senior intelligence official said. ‘”Decisive” is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.’

3. “He went on, ‘Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out’—remove the nuclear option—’they’re shouted down.'”

2. Bombing Iran could “provoke ‘a chain reaction’ of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world.”

1. See reasons #9.

Rightie Watch

Posted on by

A rightie blogger is outraged that Eleanor Clift, best known as the token liberal on “The McLaughlin Group,” is biased in favor of liberalism.

Any faithful watcher of “The McLaughlin Group” knows that one of the most transparently biased members of the antique media over the past two decades has been Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift. Week in and week out, Eleanor rips apart every Republican on the political landscape while oozing nothing but adoration for those on the opposite side of the aisle even when they are found guilty of serious transgressions.

The other regulars, including Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, and McLaughlin himself are, of course, the very measure of objectivity. Snort.

Clift’s op-ed posted at Newsweek’s website on Friday is a fine example. After somewhat misrepresenting the seriousness of the recent allegations that have emerged from Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff I. Lewis Libby concerning unclassified information from a National Intelligence Estimate by President Bush, Clift went right into a stump speech: “The only way the American people can stop Bush’s imperial expansion of power short is to turn out in massive numbers to take back one or the other body of Congress from Republican control.”

My goodness, Eleanor: You’re supposed to be a journalist. This isn’t reporting.

Of course it’s not reporting, you stupid twit. Newsweek clearly labels the op-editorial as “commentary” in big red letters. That means it’s the columnist’s personal opinion and analysis.

It won’t surprise you that the blogger who can’t tell the difference between commentary and reporting has dedicated his blog to “exposing and combating liberal media bias.” If you define liberal media bias as “everything I don’t want to hear because it contradicts MY biases,” and you’re an idiot to boot, there’s no question that liberal bias in media is as common as onions. People with functioning frontal lobes might not agree, of course.

The Clift op ed, btw, is pretty good. The first page, anyway. On the second page she devolves into Joe Biden apologia.

Yesterday I commented on this E.J. Dionne column about the ongoing crisis in American conservatism. Well, the same rightie genius linked above came up with this excuse:

I guess E.J. must have written this piece before this morning’s announcement by the Labor Department that the economy added more jobs in the past three months than in any first quarter since before the stock market bubble collapsed, and that over five million jobs have been added since Conservatives fought for tax cuts in 2003.

Conservatism’s dead, E.J.? Hardly.

About that announcement, see Hale Stewart, “Bush’s Job Creation Record Worst of Last 40 Years (Still).”

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the last recession ended in November 2001. That means we have had 54 months of an economic recovery. First, notice how Bush uses May 2003 as the starting point of his comparison? Why is he doing this? Because May 2003 is the lowest point of establishment job creation in his administration. Since the actual trough in November 2001 Bush’s economy has created 4,083,000 jobs. At the same point (54 months) all other expansions of the last 40 years had created more jobs.

At 54 months,

The expansion starting in February 1961 created 6,550,000 jobs

The expansion starting in November 1970 created 6,240,000 jobs

The expansion starting in March 1975 created 13,565,000 jobs

The expansion starting in November 1982 created 12,366,000 jobs

The expansion starting in March 1991 created 8,718,000 jobs.

Therefore, Bush’s economy would have to create 2,157,000 jobs to be second to last on this list.

There is no way that Bush can create enough jobs to increase his rank to 4th on the list. At this point, he will go down as presiding over the weakest records of job creation of the second half to the 20th century.

The excitement when Bush’s economy squeezes out some jobs is akin to watching, say, a trained pig push a ball with his nose. The wonder is not that the pig is so skilled, but that it can do the trick at all.

As the Lies Unravel

Posted on by

John Dean has a new column at FindLaw that separates fact from assumption about Bush’s role in Plamegate. In particular, Dean challenges the assumption made by most news reports that the President didn’t do anything illegal when he authorized leaks as Scooter Libby alleged. Later in this post I point to allegations from Knight Ridder reporters that the right-wing media echo chamber, in particular Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard, was a participant in a White House disinformation campaign. But I want to address the legal/illegal question first.

The new leak revelation “has been accompanied by a number of public misstatements, which call for correction,” writes Dean. One of these misstatements is that Bush authorized the release of Valerie Plame’s covert status at the CIA. I haven’t personally seen anyone make that claim, but I guess Dean has. In fact, Fitzgerald’s filing says on page 27 that the President didn’t know what Libby and Cheney were up to regarding Plame (see “plausible deniability“). “The filing does indicate that the President authorized the release of classified information,” Dean says, “but it was different information — a National Intelligence Estimate that had been classified pursuant to an executive order.” Dean also notes that what Libby told the Grand Jury about what Bush allegedly said to Cheney is hearsay.

On the other hand …

Dean says it is not necessarily true that the President didn’t do anything illegal, as many news stories claim. Here’s the critical part of Dean’s column:

Assuming that Libby’s testimony is accurate, did the President do anything wrong by so declassifying the NIE? Given the fact that the national security classification system is created by executive order of the president, it would appear logical that the president has authority to unilaterally and selective declassify anything he might wish. However, that is not the way any president has ever written the executive orders governing these activities. To the contrary, the orders set forth rather detailed declassification procedures.

In addition, there is law that says that when a president issues an executive order he must either amend that executive order, or follow it just as others within the executive branch are required to do. At present, we have so few facts it is difficult to know what precisely Bush did and how he did it, and thus whether or not this law is applicable. There is also the problem that no one has standing in court to challenge a president’s refusal to follow his own rules. But voters may take note of the disposition of this administration to play by the rules, and put a Democratic Congress in place to keep an eye on the last two years of the Bush/Cheney presidency.

What is apparent, however, based on Fitzgerald’s filing, is that no one other than Bush, Cheney, Libby and apparently Addington was aware of this unilateral and selective declassification – if, indeed, the NIE was declassified. The secrecy surely suggests cover-up. For example, Fitzgerald notes that Libby “consciously decided not to make [then Deputy National Security Adviser] Hadley aware of the fact that defendant [Libby] himself had already been disseminating the NIE by leaking it to reporters while Mr. Hadley sought to get it formally declassified.” (Also, CIA Director George Tenet apparently was not aware of the partial declassification by Bush.)

Whatever authority Bush may or may not have had, however, it is crystal clear that Vice President Cheney did not have any authority to unilaterally and selectively declassify the NIE.

Recently, Cheney made the public claim (to Brit Hume of Fox News) that he had authority to declassify national security information. Learning of this, Congressman Henry Waxman asked the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress, which issues non-partisan reports, whether Cheney was right. CRS found that the Vice President has limited declassification authority, generally speaking. And their report shows Cheney had no authority in this instance — only in situations where the Vice President had been the authority to classify the material in the first place, could the Vice President have the authority to unilaterally declassify it.

There’s more. Fitzgerald’s filing implies that the NIE was not declassified at the time it was leaked, but retroactively (boldface mine):

Fitzgerald reports that Libby “testified that he was specifically authorized … to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller” because the information “was ‘pretty definite’ against Ambassador Wilson… and that the Vice President thought that it was ‘very important’ for the key judgments of the NIE to come out.”

When Libby raised the problem of discussing the NIE with Miller because of its classified status, the filing reports that Libby “testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized” Libby to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. (Emphasis added.)

The word “later” here, in the filing, is crucially ambiguous: Did the President authorized Libby’s actions before Libby actually revealed the classified information to Miller, or afterward? The distinction may make a large difference in Libby’s defense: If the authorization was retroactive, then Libby initially revealed classified information without permission to do so; thus, he would have reason to lie.

In addition, Cheney’s counsel (now Chief of Staff) “opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.” (Emphasis added.)

Again, the language here is telling. The filing says that the President’s actions “amounted to” declassification, not that the President had unilaterally declassified the material. To the contrary, it appears the material was not declassified for several days.

So, based on what we know so far, we cannot say whether the President did or didn’t do anything illegal when he authorized the NIE information to be released. It appears Cheney, on the other hand, exceeded his declassification authority.

Even if the President was within the law, that doesn’t mean he was within the right. Warren Strobel and Ron Hutcheson of Knight Ridder write that the new revelation is part of “a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration’s political agenda.”

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials have reacted angrily at unauthorized leaks, such as the exposure of a domestic wiretapping program and a network of secret CIA prisons, both of which are now the subject of far-reaching investigations.

But secret information that supports their policies, particularly about the Iraq war, has surfaced everywhere from the U.N. Security Council to major newspapers and magazines. Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated.

In other words, they selectively leak lies and misinformation to throw media off the scent of what they’re really up to.

On Friday, White House officials said that the administration declassified information to rebut charges that Bush was manipulating intelligence.

Without specifically acknowledging Bush’s actions in the Libby case, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters: “There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. We felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified be declassified.”

Except that what the Administration selectively declassified (if indeed it was declassified) and leaked was false, and the “irresponsible and unfounded accusations” were, in fact, true. And the Bush Administration knew it at the time. Which means they sure as hell know now, even if they won’t admit it.

Strobel and Hutcheson provide a list of Bushie-generated misinformation that I won’t repeat here. However, I got a kick out of this bit toward the end of the article —

In November 2003, the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard published highly classified raw intelligence purporting to a show a link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

The Pentagon disavowed the report. But in early January 2004, Cheney told the Rocky Mountain News newspaper that the magazine report was the “best source of information” about the Saddam/al-Qaida connection. That connection has never been proved.

I’m pretty sure this is the article in question. I remember this article well; it was linked to robustly by the rightie blogosphere and cited by many other news sources as the definitive proof that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda. But it appears that Stephen Hayes was filling the Judy Miller role for the Weekly Standard — Cheney would dictate to Hayes what to write, and then later Cheney would cite the Hayes article as if it were independent corroboration of his assertions. And the righties embraced it all as gospel.

Who says the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is a myth?

Speaking of the VRWC, the Bush Bitter Enders are working overtime to crank out excuses. I haven’t surveyed the entire Right Blogosphere, but the dumbest excuse I’ve seen so far comes from Riehl World View. Truly, the Riehl post is a study in pathological denial, but the best part is from this old NewsMax post about alleged Clinton Administration leaks about Paula Jones and Linda Tripp! Yes, bless us, the Clinton did it too dodge! And, of course, discrediting Linda Tripp about a BJ is so much more significant than spreading disinformation about national security intelligence and a war that is tearing the nation apart. Oh, wait …

See also: The Reaction, “Follow the Mendacity”