New York Times outs alleged sexual assault victim


Recently New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin revealed the name of a woman who was allegedly victimized in a case of sexual misconduct by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanaugh.

What is interesting, and disgusting, about this particular revelation is that it went completely against the NYT’s standard policy and journalistic ethics in general.

Generally, the NYT does not allow the name of an alleged victim of sexual assault to be published without the express consent of said victim. This is done to protect her privacy and shield her from the public scrutiny and possible humiliation that may arise in such sad cases. This is a very understandable, compassionate, and proper policy.

And yet, Pogrebin decided to jettison this standard in pursuit of a narrative, a narrative about Justice Kavanaugh’s “kind of behavior.” As you recall, Democrats and their allies in the press attempted to smear Kavanaugh as a serial sexual abuser one year ago in an attempt to derail his Senate confirmation.

They came close, but due to a complete lack of corroborating evidence, and a rather copious amount of contrarian evidence, the charges did not hold up and he was confirmed. Our constitutional process, where a duly elected president nominates a candidate who is then approved by a duly elected Senate worked as intended.

But, that’s not enough for the left, or for warriors in service of the absolute cause of abortion rights.

Usually, they depend on “Sisterhood” to unit them in every battle, and so they came together in droves for #metoo, they marched on Washington in funny-shaped pink hats, they demanded that we “believe women,” and came out in force to support the unassailable Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Yep, you can sure depend on the Sisterhood for certain causes, especially abortion, since no other cause unites the left like that one, especially the feminists in the left. (Ironic, since the first major publication to come out in support of abortion rights in the early 1960s was Playboy.)

But, the Sisterhood has its limits. It won’t protect victims of sexual abuse by men who are “on their side,” like Bill Clinton. In fact, one of its primary leaders, Hillary, ferociously attacked Clinton’s accusers and attempted to discredit them as mere white trash wanting a bit of fame and money. Not exactly very sisterly.

And now the latest example is this Times reporter, Pogrebin, outing a woman who someone else claimed was a “victim” of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh in a dorm party 30 years ago. Why was this poor woman outed? Because she had the temerity to not back-up the story and deny any recollection of it. The reporter herself claimed the victim was probably drunk at the time anyway (another rather tawdry attack on this woman’s character).

She had thus taken all the air out of this latest attempt to discredit Kavanaugh and so deserved whatever punishment and public humiliation came her way as a result of her name being revealed.

Why such gestapo tactics by the Sisterhood and feminists who claim to fight on behalf of women, who demand we “believe women”? Because they have no argument for their central cause in life: to keep abortion legal for all 9 months.

None. Nada. There is no decent argument for terminating the life of an innocent human being in utero. They know this and this is why they only use slogans, emotional appeals, and self-centered pleading to push their cause and guilt men, especially, and any detractors into supporting them, lest they be labeled as being part of the so-called “war on women.”

And because their cause is the opposite of just, and is in fact hideously repugnant, they have no qualms whatsoever about using equally repugnant tactics to advance it. So if that means using lies to tear down the reputation and personal well-being of a man who MIGHT rule against Roe v. Wade (but probably won’t, given his judicial record), so be it. Gotta break a few eggs to make an abortion omelet.

I ask those of you who support these attacks on Kavanaugh and this insistence on absolute vitriol towards any woman who doesn’t toe the party line on abortion: is this how you really want to be?

Do you want to be associated with perverts like Hugh Heffner, Alfred Kinsey, and eugenicists like Margaret Sanger, and with tactics that completely dispense with due process and the rule of law to advance your cause?

Or to support an organization like Planned Parenthood that gets caught in bold-faced lies about what it does (“we provide mammograms”; not!), who sells baby parts for money and encourages under-age victims of rape to get abortions, which allows the rapist to get off scot-free?

At some point, I would hope this type of behavior would cue a pro-choice person to re-consider the rightness of their cause and recognize that there is another way to take care of both the women who are pregnant and the human life in their womb besides abortion. That’s what a true sisterhood of love would do.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.


  1. At risk of getting censored again, I’ll let the following article speak for itself as to whether or not the NYT “outed” the alleged sexual assault victim. A cynic would claim that the conservative media outlets are again trying to divert attention away from the actual story of Kavanaugh’s behavior, and towards a made up claim against the NYT.