Here's Nancy Keenan's NARAL press release
And here's Pollak's critique: Pollak's response to Keenan's press release
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.
In Nancy Keenan's NARAL press release, she writes:
"Rep. Ryan's anti-choice record includes: Repeatedly voting to deny women in the military, who defend our freedom overseas, the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals."
In his response to Keenan's press release, Joel Pollak says.
"She continues with a torrent of lies, such as that Ryan’s record includes “Repeatedly voting to deny women in the military – who defend our freedom overseas – the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals.” Again, what Keenan leaves out is critical: no U.S. military hospitals provide abortions to begin with."
Your task is to evaluate Pollak's claim against Keenan. What does independent research tell us about the veracity of Keenan's 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?
Here are some questions you should 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 would 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. The crux of this issue is whether or not Keenan's statement that Ryan's record includes "repeatedly voting to deny women in the military – who defend our freedom overseas – the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals" is a lie. Pollak says this is a lie because "no U.S. military hospitals provide abortions to begin with." Now, in order for this fact to make a liar out of Keenan, it would have to be the case that she had said that some U.S. military hospitals did provide abortions at some time. But did she?
Your present task is to look at Keenan's statement that Ryan was "repeatedly voting to deny women in the military – who defend our freedom overseas – the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals" and figure out whether or not that statement, in its plain, common meaning says, implies, or even suggests that some or all U.S. military hospitals do or did at some time provide abortions.
I think it might be important to remember that Keenan used the
word "deny." She did not use "withdraw," or "take away,"
or "remove," or "curtail," or "stop," or "terminate." She used the
word deny. Thus evaluating Pollak's accusation might
crucially depend on knowing exactly what this word "deny" means in
common English usage.
It might help to consider an analogous hypothetical example: Suppose that, while there has never been a bill that was originally written to allow muskrats to nest in post offices, but that several Senators have offered amendments to other bills that would change those bills to allow muskrats to nest in post offices, and that Senator Beaverman has always voted against those amendments. (Some senator creates a bill, some other senator says "let's change that bill so it allows muskrats to nest in post offices, and Beaverman votes against this.) Would it then be true or false to say that Senator Beaverman has always voted to deny muskrats the right to nest in post offices? Would saying that Senator Beaverman has always voted to deny muskrats the right to nest in post offices imply that muskrats had ever had this right?
So, did Keenan, say, imply or even suggest that U.S. military hospitals ever provided abortions? (If you think she did, explain just how the words she used can be reasonably construed to mean this.) Remember, things that happen in your head as you read are not necessarily the same as things the writer is actually saying. The question is not "what did you think" but "what is the plain English meaning of the actual text?"
Finally, I would like to suggest that, if no U.S. military hospitals currently provide abortions, then women in the military are indeed denied the right to use their own private funds for abortion .
If you know what Keenan actually said, you can compare it to Ryan's actual voting record.
Here are some questions with helpful links that might prove useful in determining Ryan's actual voting record. These links go directly to official records of congressional actions, proposals and votes. It's the best information I could find on the internet.
So now there are two question you should answer:
1. Based on these links, is it true or false that in the years 1999 - 2006, Democrats in congress several times tried to introduce measures to allow women in the military the right to use their own, private funds for abortion care at military hospitals?
2. Based on these links, is it true or false that in those years, Paul Ryan again and again and again voted against those measures?
If you don't answer these two questions, you're not doing the assignment.
If you've answered all the previous questions, you could move on to the logic issue. If you haven't answered the previous questions, you should go back and answer them. Seriously, there's no point in going on unless you do the most basic tasks you've been assigned to do.
Pollak says that the fact that U.S. military hospitals do not provide abortions proves that Keenan was lying when she said that Ryan had repeatedly voted to deny servicewomen the right to obtain abortions in U.S. military hospitals. Does this work logically?
A hypothetical analogy might help. Suppose Ruritania has been a monarchy for all of it's recorded history. Suppose that Mutt says "Rupert von Hentzau has frequently attempted to gain the throne of Ruritania," and that subsequently, Jeff says "Mutt is lying when he says Hentzau has frequently attempted to gain the Ruritanian throne. We can see this from the fact that the Rassendyll family has always held the throne, and that no Hentzau has ever sat on the Ruritanian throne." And suppose that you investigate, and find that the Rassendylls have indeed held the throne through all history until the present day. Would that fact (all by itself) imply that Mutt was lying when he said that Hentzau had many times attempted the throne? (If you think it does, I'd like you to explain your answer in your paper.)
Jeff's argument has the same logical form as Pollak's, so if Pollak's argument works, so does Jeff's, and vice versa. If, on the other hand, Jeff's argument doesn't work, then Pollak's argument fails as well.
If (and this is a very big IF), if you decided that Nancy Keenan's statement about Paul Ryan is not true, you must also decide if Pollak has proved that Keenan was lying, rather than just mistaken. To prove that someone lies you must prove that they knew that what they said was untrue, or at least that the truth was so available, or so easy to find out that a person would have to act with reckless disregard for appropriate standards of evidence to make that statement. What, if anything, does Pollak specifically and explicitly say in his article that supports his claim that Nancy Keenan was lying, rather than just making a mistake, when she said Ryan repeatedly voted to deny women in the military the right to use their own funds for abortions at military hospitals?
Now, if you did all the research and determined that Nancy Keenan was not wrong, she could not possibly be lying so you wouldn't do this bit.
Now, on the other hand If (and this is also a very big IF), if you decided that Nancy Keenan's statement about Paul Ryan is true, you must also decide if Pollak was lying, rather than just mistaken. To prove that someone lies you must prove that they knew that what they said was untrue, or at least that the truth was so available, or so easy to find out that a person would have to act with reckless disregard for appropriate standards of evidence to make that statement. If Nancy Keenan has been telling the truth, do you also have reason to think that Pollak acted with reckless disregard for the truth?
When you've finished your analysis, write up your results in a
paper that states and explains the facts and reasoning that led
you to the conclusion that as far as you can tell, is best
supported by the totality of the available evidence. Your paper
can start off in one of three ways:
After you've stated and fully explained your logical
analysis, you may make anu other comments you wish. Those comments
based on facts and logic may be considered in grading. (Those
based purely on feelings are okay as expressions of feels, but
they cannot help your grade.)
