Stage 4

The topic discussed in the New York Times editorial article involves the Constitution’s right not to shield President Donald Trump of allegations of misconduct prior to him coming into office in 2016. The author of the article is the New York Times Editorial Board. The Editorial Board is part of the Opinion department of the times, and consists of fifteen journalists led by James Bennet. In the article, the source claims that Mr. Trump is not protected by the presidency from answering civil charges. The Editorial Board supports this claim by using the precedent set in the Clinton vs Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. In this case, the author explains, President Clinton was to appear in the courts and be questioned under oath by lawyers. I agree with the correlation the author made between President Clinton and President Donald Trump because according to the article Trump has received allegations of sexual misconduct before he took office by a former contestant on Trump’s TV show, The Apprentice. The contestant, Summer Zervos, is suing the President for deframing her when calling her accusations of him groping her a hoax. The overall message the article sent was that the President is not above the law, and will be treated like any other civilian would be when facing similar accusations. The article was likely written for liberals as The Times is a left-leaning news source. The article reaffirms their belief in the judiciary system, and reminds readers that regardless of a President’s actions, they are not beyond the reach of the court.

Stage 3: Editorial Critical Analysis

In a February 2019 New York Times article, The Editorial Board reports that the Trump administration's new family planning rule threatens access to contraception and health care via Title X. The Editorial Board at the New York Times is composed of journalists with wide-ranging areas of expertise. Among these journalists is Michelle Cottle, formally a news correspondent in Washington, but now covering U.S politics for the Times. The credibility of the editorial page is especially strong because it is edited by James Bennet, a former White House correspondent and Jerusalem bureau chief. The articles intended audience is women, their direct or indirect involvement with Title X, and how the changes made to Title X influence their options with family planning. The author claims that the new rule was United States government’s way of imposing unnecessary regulations for reproductive health clinics to impede women's access to options and care. The author explains that in order for a clinic that provides abortions to continue receiving funding the clinic must create a separate entrance for those seeking an abortion, hire separate personnel, and use a different system for storing abortion-related health records. I take the author's stance that creating an excessive amount of “hoops” to jump through puts women at a disadvantaged state. The Editorial Board also makes the argument that the new rule is unethical because it also includes a part that prohibits health care providers from informing pregnant patients about their full range of options. As a reader I was immediately alarmed by doctors no longer being required to educate pregnant patients of their options. It is now expected that many health clinics will no longer use Title X, but with this being many women's main source of health care, I stand with author in sympathizing for the price women are paying.