I'm lost: Is adoption a bad thing?

silohuetteOK, I have read this story over and over and I cannot figure it out. What, precisely, was The New York Times looking for in its investigation into the back stories of the adopted children of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and his wife, Jane, she of the Feminists for Life connection on her resume? The Dallas Morning News has the story, in large part because of the ticked off response to the Times investigation by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

A spokesman for the nation's newspaper of record did fess up, sort of.

On Friday, the Times said no one had ordered an investigation of the adoptions, calling the inquiry part of a routine effort to "report extensively on the life and career" of a nominee for high office.

"Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue," said Times spokesman Toby Usnik. "We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."

So the journalists were, it seems, looking for evidence of illegality or shady doings in the adoption of Josephine and Jack Roberts, ages 5 and 4. Is that it?

Or is there some chance that they were trying to find something embarrassing in the private lives of two active practicing Catholics, who got married when they both were 41? They adopted their children four years later. You see, traditional Catholics are supposed to get married early and have lots and lots of their own children. That's the ticket.

Help me out here. What am I missing? What was the goal?

Please respect our Commenting Policy