PlusMedia

The ‘So-Called’ Journalism on Conscience Rights

We certainly wouldn’t want to force Politico writers to do things that undermine their principles.

Share this story

A patient is treated at IU Health in Indianapolis, Ind., December 14, 2020.

Bryan Woolston/Reuters

Politico reports that the Department of Health and Human Services is getting ready to scrap a Trump-era rule that would have protected the conscience rights of medical workers. At first, I was merely going to comment on the Biden administration’s pending attack on doctors uninterested in aborting babies or mutilating children, but after reading this piece by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Adam Cancryn, it seems worth noting the rank dishonesty that’s embedded in most of the coverage of this topic.

Politico refers euphemistically to abortion as “reproductive rights,” but calls a policy that protects workers from being compelled to participate in procedures they find immoral the “so-called conscience rule.” The term “so-called” intimates that the rule in question isn’t really about the thing its proponents claim it to be. It’s how a conservative pundit might refer to the so-called voting-rights bills or so-called infrastructure bills or so-called stimulus spending. “So-called” is never a neutral term and most often insinuates that the stated cause is a dishonest one.

David Harsanyi

About the Author

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement