Then, in your notes, write out your best answer to your overall group assignment, saying either that you can't figure it out (and what you do think), or that Pollack did or didn't prove his claim against Keenan. Thus, your answer can take one of three forms:
AFTER you've done that, go to your assigned discussion and read all the existing posts.
First, without reading any other comments, paste in your prewritten analysis as a new post in that thread.
Second, then read all the other posts in the thread (you may have to come back later to do this), making notes as you go whenever an analysis differs from yours. Note down whenever someone disagrees with something you said, or mentions a detail you didn't include, or a logical implication you didn't notice, or leaves out something you think is an important detail, or makes what you see as a logical error. You don't have to note down dozens of details, but you should try to note down at least the most significant four, or five points, or at least what you can find.
THEN, decide if you're going to stand or fold. If you decide that your original analysis (which still gets 5 points) was wrong, you then add a comment to your original post in which you explain how and why you changed your mind. Or, if you still think you were right, make a comment on someone else's post politely ask a pertinent question, or otherwise make a comment that you think gently nudges the other poster in the correct direction.
Okay, here's your starting analysis question:
Your Overall Group Assignment: Determine through cooperative work and group discussion whether or not Pollak proves that Keenan lied when she said Ryan supported the bill she calls the "Let Women Die Bill". |
You should treat this as if it were a mathematics problem. There is a right answer, and you have to figure it out before you start writing down your answer. If a teacher asks you "what is two-plus-two" and you feel very strongly that the answer is "seven," you would still be wrong to give "seven" as your answer to "what is two-plus-two." Similarly, there is a right answer to the question posed above, this answer can be determined by examining Keenan's writing, Pollak's writing and any other relevant evidence. If you base your answer on what you feel to be true instead of the evidence, you will very probably get it wrong and get zero points for this assignment.
Before you start, I want to make a short comment about the probable impact of a "Let Women Die Bill" if it existed and had been passed. (I'm not saying it existed, I'm not saying it didn't. I'm just talking about what would have happened if a bill like that became law.) The answer, in my opinion, is not much. Nancy Keenan says there was a bill that said that if a hospital refused to perform an abortion, the government could not do anything, such as withholding federal fans, to punish the hospital. She also said that this rule even applied if the refused abortion was necessary to save the woman's life. This sounds shocking, but there are a couple of reasons to think that, if it is true, it is not actually a big deal. First, the hypothetical bill in question (which may or may not have existed) does not mention an actual, existing law called EMTALA, which specifically says that the government must punish any hospital that lets anyone suffer a life-threatening emergency when medical treatment can save them. EMTALA isn't mentioned in this possibly nonexistent bill so, while it's possible that, as some people think, the bill Keenan speaks of would override EMTALA, I personally don't think that's at all likely. Second, even if such legislation did become law, and it did override EMTALA, it is highly doubtful that doctors in any American hospital, even a Catholic hospital, would actually allow any woman to die when an abortion would save her. I base this claim on the fact that, while Catholic hospitals already regularly refuse to perform abortions, they have performed life-saving abortions when necessary (Phoenix Case). So I personally think this particular point is not actually a big issue out there in the real world. However, here in this class, I want you to practice the skill of critical thinking on this particular criticism, by Joel Pollak, of what Nancy Keenan specifically said about this bill in her press release.
The fundamental question here is did Joel Pollak justify his claims about what Keenan said? Please don't assume that Pollak is right, or even that Pollak is honest. Don't assume anything. Do your own thinking. You need to get the meaning of Keenan's statement correct, the meaning of Pollak's claim about that statement correct, and Pollak's reasoning in support of his claim about that statement correct before you go on to critically analyze that reasoning. (After you've done this, you can make your own comments on whether the LWDB would be a big deal if it existed. Just make sure you do the real assignment before you do so.)
In Nancy Keenan's NARAL press release, she writes:
"Rep. Ryan . . . supported the "Let Women Die Bill," which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it. "
In his response to Keenan's press release, Joel Pollak says.
"For example, one of the lies told by Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, is that Ryan “supported the ‘Let Women Die Bill,’ which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it.” It goes without saying that there was never any such piece of legislation. The actual bill to which Keenan is referring was called the “Protect Life Act,” H.R. 358, and it is about protecting religious freedom, not banning abortion. The act was passed in response to concerns that the Obama administration would force Catholic hospitals (and others) to provide abortions. Keenan makes it seem as though Ryan had voted to ban abortion at all hospitals, even if the mother’s life was in mortal danger. He did not. (Update: It is worth noting--since Keenan does not--what Ryan's position on abortion actually is: he has always opposed it, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger--precisely what Keenan tries to lie about. The Associated Press noted as far back as 1998, during Ryan's first run for Congress, that "Republican nominee Paul Ryan has opposed abortion in general except to save a woman's life.")"
Your task is to evaluate Pollak's claim against Keenan. What does independent research tell us about the veracity of Keenan's exact claim about Ryan? What does logical analysis tell us about the cogency of Pollak's reasoning against this claim? Is Pollak correct when he describes Keenan's statement as a lie? What does your analysis of this small dispute say about Pollak's diligence, intelligence and integrity? Do you think that Pollak has done the kind of careful research one should do before one accuses another person of lying? If we assume that Pollak is completely honest here, and is saying exactly what he actually thinks, what does his claim here about Keenan say about his ability to think logically? Finally, if we don't assume he is completely honest, what does his behavior in this one small matter say about his personal integrity?
I should point out that I am not asking you to preserve any previously expressed or privately held opinions. If Pollak was wrong in the last dispute, he could easily turn out to be right in this dispute. You should approach this issue with an open mind, and you can change your mind about anything at any time. If you previously thought that the evidence supported one side, but now see that the evidence supports the other side, you are supposed to go with what you see the evidence saying right now. Your most important cognitive faculty is your ability to change your mind. If you think you have to stick with some previously expressed thesis, you are not exercising free will, and you are not thinking for yourself.
Here are some questions you should probably think about BEFORE you come to an overall decision. You can pick and choose which issues you investigate based on what you think you need to understand in order to answer the questions at the end of this page. Remember, though, that you are required to come to a correct conclusion about this issue, so skipping questions that might help you actually understand this issue is not a good idea. Many of the questions in the following sections come with links to websites that might help you answer them:
The first thing to do is make Keenan's actual statement as clear as possible. A good way to do this is to take the sentence ""Rep. Ryan . . . supported the "Let Women Die Bill," which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it." and put it into your own words without thinking about what anyone else says about it. To do this, you might have to turn Keenan's one long sentence into several sentences, or even a paragraph, as you make sure that everything Keenan said is precisely represented in your paraphrase, without adding, changing or subtracting anything at all.
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Pollak says quite a lot about this issue, so fairly and precisely representing his statements is going to take some time and effort. I suggest you take each of Pollak's claims and represent it in at least a sentence of your own ways. You might want to even make a numbered list of his claims. Again, his statement was: "For example, one of the lies told by Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, is that Ryan “supported the ‘Let Women Die Bill,’ which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it.” It goes without saying that there was never any such piece of legislation. The actual bill to which Keenan is referring was called the “Protect Life Act,” H.R. 358, and it is about protecting religious freedom, not banning abortion. The act was passed in response to concerns that the Obama administration would force Catholic hospitals (and others) to provide abortions. Keenan makes it seem as though Ryan had voted to ban abortion at all hospitals, even if the mother’s life was in mortal danger. He did not. (Update: It is worth noting--since Keenan does not--what Ryan's position on abortion actually is: he has always opposed it, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger--precisely what Keenan tries to lie about. The Associated Press noted as far back as 1998, during Ryan's first run for Congress, that "Republican nominee Paul Ryan has opposed abortion in general except to save a woman's life.")" Again make sure you don't add, change or subtract anything from Pollak's statement about Keenan's statement.
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Next, if you haven't already done so, you should explain exactly what Keenan most likely meant by "The Let Woman Die Bill." Here are some links to people using that term in other articles:
After carefully skimming a few of these articles, work out just what Keenan is referring to when she says the "Let Women Die Bill." You might also think about how likely any of her readers are to be confused by her use of this term, if they had been following the relevant news articles. If you think that there's a chance that a significant number of people who read NARAL and Politico.com will not know what he's talking about, go a google search on "Let Women Die Bill"
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
At a certain point, Pollak seems to argue that Keenan is lying because she refers to H.R. 358 by a nickname that is different from it's official title. If this were to make sense, it would mean that anyone who referred to any bill by any name other than it's official name would be lying, which, of course, would include anyone who referred to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare." So, in order to evaluate what Pollak might be saying here, you would have to think about whether you would be telling a lie if you used the term "Obamacare." to refer to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
It might be helpful to your analysis to know exactly what the relevant section of H.R. 358 (which amends Obamacare) says precisely. So here is the relevant section of H.R. 358: (I've split it up a bit, and added line numbers for ease of reference.)
I will try to interpret this from congressese to plain English.
In my opinion, this text says that if an entity providing health care, such as, say, a Catholic hospital, refuses to perform, or train its staff to perform, or to refer patients out for abortions, no government entity can do anything bad to them for it, such as withholding federal funds from them. If you agree with me on this bit, then well and good. If you disagree with me about this, and think that this section says something different from what I think it says, write out what you think it says, and support your interpretation with appropriate quotations from the text of H.R. 358.
You can read the actual text of H.R. 358 at H.R. 358. Or you can read a summary of it at (Summary of H.R. 358)
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
On Monday, Bootsie prevents Snudge from forcing Johnson to juggle cats. On Tuesday, Bootsie forces Snudge to allow Johnson to not juggle cats. Is there any difference between being prevented from forcing someone to do something and being forced to allow people to not do that thing? If you think there's a difference, say what that difference is. If you can't say what the difference is, you should admit that there's no difference.
I may be missing something, but it seems to me that Keenan and Pollak both agree that H.R. 358 says that hospitals must be allowed to refuse to provide abortions. If you agree with me, that's cool. But it may be that I've missed something, so you could think about whether there's any difference between Keenan and Pollak on this point. Yes, Keenan says it forces the government to allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, and Pollak says it prevents the government from forcing hospitals to perform abortions, but is there any logical difference between these two statements?
If you think that Pollak and Keenan disagree about this particular point, tell me which one of them thinks that H.R. 358 does not prevent the government from forcing hospitals to provide abortions, and then back up that claim with evidence from the relevant text. (Just saying "evidence exists" is not enough. You have to actually present the evidence. If you can't present evidence, there is no evidence.)
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Keenan says that H.R. 358 (the "Let Women Die Bill") allows hospitals to refuse to provide abortions even if the woman's life is in danger. Does Pollak ever explicitly disagree with this claim. If you can find anywhere in Pollak's article where he says that H.R. 358 (the "Protect Life Act") does not allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions if the woman's life is in danger, copy that bit into your paper and say exactly what it says.
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
There are three important possibilities for H.R. 358:
1. It could be that H.R. 358 does not allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions. (In which case both Pollak and Keenan are wrong)
2. It could be that H.R. 358 allows hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, but makes an exception for life-threatening situations, so that H.R. 358 does not allows hospitals to refuse to provide abortions when the woman's life is in danger, (In which case Pollak is right and Keenan is wrong) or
3. It could be that H.R. 358 allows hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, and does not make an exception for life-threatening situations, so that H.R. 358 does allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions even when the woman's life is in danger. (In which case Pollak is wrong, and Keenan is right.)
So which is it? Read the excerpt given above, or go to the main text H.R. 358 or the summary, and figure out if H.R. 358 says that hospitals can't refuse to provide an abortion if the woman's life is in danger. If H.R. 358 doesn't say this, then the act does not make an exception if the woman would die if she didn't get an abortion, and this section basically does allow hospitals, and other healthcare providers, to refuse to provide abortions, even if such refusal would result in the death of the woman seeking the abortion.
I will give you one HUGE hint here. If HR358 did make an exception for life-threatening situations to a hospital's right to refuse abortions, there would be text saying that there was such an exception to a hospital's right to refuse abortions, and you would be able to quote that text in the paper, so if you can't quote it, it isn't there. (For comparison, the part of the bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds to provide abortions does make an exception for life saving abortions, and we know this because it includes language explicitly saying that very thing, in section (4)(c)(1)(B)) So the way to finally answer this question is to look at your own paper, and see if you have written down a quotation from HR358 that specifically limits a hospital's right to refuse to provide abortions to cases where the woman's life is not in danger. (If your quote does not specifically reference a hospital's right to refuse to provide abortions, either by including words that explicitly state that right, or by specifically referencing the sections (Subsection (g)(1) A-D) that allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, then your quote is not evidence that HR358 contains an exception to a hospital's right to refuse abortions. (Sections that make exceptions to other provisions of HR358 do not count here. You need to provide evidence of an exception to a hospital's right to refuse abortions.)
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Does Pollack give evidence that the term "Let Women Die Bill" does not refer to H.R. 358? If so, what is that evidence? Remember that Pollak saying that there's no such bill is not evidence. Pollack saying that H.R.358 is not about abortion is not evidence. Evidence would be quotations from relevant parts of the bill, or statements from reputable, independent authorities, or other documentation, or something else beyond just his say-so.
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Did Keenan/NARAL say that H.R. 358 was not about religious freedom? (If you answer "yes" give the specific quote where they specifically say that.) Did NARAL deny that forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions would infringe their religious freedom? (If you answer "yes" give the specific quote where they specifically say that.) What, if anything, did NARAL say about H.R. 358 and religious freedom?
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Did NARAL say that H.R. 358 was about banning abortion? (If you answer "yes" give the specific quote where they specifically say that.) Did Keenan say anything about Ryan's vote for H.R. 358 that could be reasonably construed as implying that Ryan had voted to ban abortion at all hospitals? (If so, what did she say? Give the quote and pick out the exact words where it states or implies that Ryan had voted to ban abortion at all hospitals?)
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Did Keenan say that Ryan personally opposed life-saving abortions? (If so, give a specific quote where she specifically says that.) Did Keenan say that Ryan had ever said that he opposed abortions that would save women's lives? Did Keenan ever refer to what Ryan believed about abortion in 1998? (If so, give a specific quote where she specifically refers to his expressed personal beliefs.) Apart from the H.R. 358 vote, does Keenan say anything about Ryan's position on abortions in cases where the mother's life is in danger?
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Does Pollak give any reason to think that H.R. 358 does not give Catholic hospitals the right to refuse to provide abortions? (If so, what is that reason?) Does Pollak give any reason to think that H.R. 358 restricts this right to refuse to provide abortions to cases where the woman's life is not in danger? (If so, what is that reason?)
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Does Ryan's personal willingness to allow life-saving abortions necessarily mean that he thinks other people should be forced to provide such abortions if their religion tells them not to? Does Pollak give any reason to think that Ryan didn't vote for H.R. 358? (If so, what is that reason?) Does Pollak give any reason to think that Ryan didn't vote for the bill that Nancy Keenan (and others) call the "Let Women Die Bill?" (If so, what is that reason?)
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
Based on your reading of H.R. 358: Protect Life Act (On Passage of the Bill), did Ryan vote for or against H.R. 358? (Search the page for "Ryan, Paul.")
Make sure you think about this issue BEFORE you decide on your thesis.
(Remember, saying "there's evidence" is not the same as giving evidence.)
Here's what I want you to write in your paper for this assignment. Each of the following points should be explained clearly and completely in its own separate paragraph. Some paragraphs will be long and complicated, others will be short and simple. all you need to worry about is making your point as clearly as possible, and including all necessary details.
Remember that if all you do is repeat things Keenan said, you will fail,
and that if all you do is repeat things Pollak said, you will fail. You have to think for yourself here.
If you don't, you will surely fail.
Here's what I want you
to do:
If you have figured out the answer for yourself, here's how you should write your paper:
|
