Michelle Malkin writes:
Remember this name: Carmen Climaco.
The next time you hear a New York Times columnist defend the paper’s commitment to accuracy, fairness, and ethical standards, give them two words: Carmen Climaco.
How could a 26-year-old woman from El Salvador could unravel the Gray Lady’s 155-year-old standard-setting history?
As much as Ms. Malkin would love for you to believe so, she can’t. Not really.
The story begins with a April 9th New York Times Magazine article by Jack Hitt on El Salvador’s draconian, catholic-driven, anti-abortion laws. Salvadoran law absolutely forbids abortion in every possible circumstance, without exception, and offenders are subject to up to 30 years in prison. Not only that, but there is an entire branch of law enforcement, complete with “forensic vagina inspectors,” dedicated to finding and prosecuting offenders.
Women in El Salvador cannot even confide in their doctors, should they suffer from a “back alley” abortion gone wrong. According to Carmen Vargas, chief of OB/GYN residents at a maternity hospital in San Salvador, “When we see physical evidence,” she says, “we are required to report.”
Let that all sink in for just a minute.
Now, let’s talk about Carmen Climaco. Ms. Climaco, the article reports, was a 26-year-old woman serving her fourth year of a 30-year prison sentence for aborting her pregnancy at 18 weeks. She is mentioned in the final four paragraphs of the near 8,000 word article, and her story is tragic.
Only her story, it turns out, may not be the real story. Last Sunday, the NYT published a clarification, in which it revealed that Salvadoran court records showed that Ms. Climaco had, in fact, been convicted of strangling her newly-born infant.
Mr. Hitt’s explanation for why these documents were not vetted seems like a reasonable mistake. Also, Mr. Hitt, and others, question the veracity of said records. Nonetheless, NYT Ombudsman Byron Calame freely offers that “The care taken in the reporting and editing of this example didn’t meet the magazine’s normal standards.”
Let’s put aside the fact that the only reason Malkin knew about the NYT’s possible error in the first place is that the NYT disclosed it. The real travesty here is her attempt to discredit the entire article, based on one mistaken example.
The irony of Michelle Malkin calling out the New York Times for accuracy would be amusing, were it not so disturbing. The fact that she would turn a blind eye to the plight of so many women under an oppressive theocratic government, just to score some cheap points from her right-wing readers, speaks volumes about her own lacking journalistic integrity.
Just because this woman may not be serving prison time for having an abortion doesn’t mean that hundreds of others aren’t. And Malkin knows it. But her body of work demonstrates that she clearly would like to see similar laws passed in this country.
Let that all sink in for just a minute, too.
