The New York Times Then and Now

Here's is an excerpt of a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times concerning abortion.

"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."

The upshot is that many Portuguese seem to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. They are morally uncomfortable with abortion, especially late in pregnancies, but they don't think the solution is to arrest young women for making agonizing personal choices to end their pregnancies.

As one sensible woman put it in her autobiography: "For me, abortion is a personal issue - between the mother, father and doctor." She added, "Abortion is not a presidential matter."

President Bush, listen to your mother.

That is now. Now, consider the New York Times of August 23, 1871.

THE EVIL OF THE AGE

Slaughter of the Innocents — Open Trade in Crime — Where Vice is Nurtured — The Moral and Physical Nature Both Destroyed — Scenes Described by Eye-Witnesses

The enormous amount of medical malpractice that exists and flourishes, almost unchecked, in the City of New York, is a theme for most serious consideration. Thousands of human beings are thus murdered before they have seen the light of this world, and thousands upon thousands more of adults are irremediably ruined in constitution, health and happiness. So secretly are these crimes committed and so craftily do the perpetrators inveigle their vicitims, that it is next to impossible to obtain evidence and witnesses. Facts are so artfully concealed from the public mind, and appearance so carefully guarded, that very meagre outlines of the horrible truth have thus far been disclosed. But could even a portion of the facts that have been detected in frightful profusion, by the agents of the TIMES, be revealed in print, in their hideous truth, the reader would shrink from the appalling picture.

More than once, some of the fearless and eminent of the clergy have spoken upon this theme from their pulpits. They have declared the existence of these great evils in social life — alike denounced and forbidden by the law of God and man. The records of our criminal courts also occasionally afford indications of the horrible degree and amount of depravity already referred to. Indeed, language can scarcely exaggerate the actual facts. There is a systematic business in wholesale murder conducted by men and women in this City, that is seldom detected, rarely interfered with, and scarcely ever punished by law.

-- New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 23, 1871; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 6 [Note: ProQuest reprints may be purchased off the New York Times website.]

The crusade by the New York Times was a defining one for this paper. This article along with other exposés invariably focused on the abortion providers. We do know what it was like when abortion was outlawed and it was not the women patients — whom Nicholas Kristof is most concerned about — who were considered the murderers. For example, the so-called trunk murder was described as follows a few days later in the Times:

This woman, full five feet in height, had been crammed into a trunk two feet six inches long. . . . Seen even in this position and rigid in death, the young girl, for she could not have been more than eighteen, had a face of singular loveliness. But her chief beauty was her great profusion of golden hair, that hung in heavy folds over her shoulders, partly shrouding the face. . . . There was some discoloration and decomposition about the pelvic region. It was apparent that here was a new victim of man’s lust, and the life-destroying arts of those abortionists.

-- New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 27, 1871; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 1

As a result of all this the New York Legislature passed more stringent laws in 1872 with punishments of up to twenty years in prison and easier evidence rules. Enforcement was also increased. The Times continued their crusade throughout the end of the Nineteenth Century. The Times have indeed changed.

Comments

[Steve]

That's an interesting excerpt from the 1871 Times, Rich.

It would be helpful to know how this compares with other Times editorial positions on 19th-century issues affecting women and families:

in 1838 ... women couldn't vote, but they also couldn't own property; they couldn't go to college. If there was a divorce, they couldn't get custody of their children. If they ran away, there were laws on the books that said, if you sheltered them, you went to jail, and more than that, this was very shocking. In sixteen states they stipulated the size of the instruments you could beat your wife or child with if you were mad because they didn't want these women and children being killed. Women were chattel, and they could not deny their husbands sexual access. So many of them were pregnant yearly. They died young. And it was a pretty tough condition for women in 1838, when Victoria was born. And it didn't improve much for a long time.

Not an area of expertise for me, but drawing meaningful conclusions is beyond me without a better understanding of the historical context.

[Rich]

Since the New York Times did not exist until 1851 some of the time period involved could not be commented upon. The political origins of the Times was Whig followed by Republican. As such, it has fairly strong abolitionist roots. The Women's Rights movement is closely linked to this movement. There was a good deal of reporting on the Women's Rights movement both in the U.S. and abroad in the Times. Nevertheless, the Times was a conservative paper. Thus, their view was we believe in women's rights, but. The following piece from December 16, 1852 is illustrative:

We believe in women's rights, and it is a part of our creed that they should have all that is their own. We would shame the stout, strong men from behind counters, where tape and needles and lace are sold ; out of School-rooms where young ideas could so much better be taught to shoot by females than by males ; out of every office and poition that belongs by the common consent to the ladies ; out the Medical offices even, if they are silly and self-denying enough, willingly to enther them ; but, — ah ! it sorely grieve our gallantry that we must plead the rights of woman with a but — but then we have our little rights too, which we would far rather surrender at discretion than under compulsion.

[Rich]

The rest of the article I quoted in my previous comment concerned giving up seats to women in lectures and streetcars on demand.