Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Pro-family advocates would rather pass judgment on Monica Lewinsky's mom than on the government forcing her to testify against her child.
Apr 8, 1998 | Distraught and appearing physically ill as she emerged from the grand jury chambers in February, Marcia Lewis was the picture of a woman ripped apart, torn between her duty to the law and her instinct as a mother to protect her daughter, Monica Lewinsky. Lewis had become a key witness in Kenneth Starr's investigation, her intimate conversations with her daughter potential evidence that could incriminate the president and possibly land her child in jail.
The image of the shaken Lewis created one more public relations disaster for the independent counsel. Already weary of the costly investigation and Starr's hardball tactics, much of the public seemed to agree with the charge made by Lewis' ex-husband, Bernard Lewinsky, that the prosecutor had gone too far in "pit(ting) a mother against her daughter." Obviously concerned about another public outcry, last week Starr quietly called Lewis back to the stand, interrogating her this time without a jury and the attendant media fanfare.
Lewis is not the first parent called on to testify against her child, but the case has spotlighted the law invading the parent-child relationship. Certainly there are cases when parents should be required to divulge what they know about a child's involvement in a crime, but is this one of them? Was Starr's action a necessary prosecutorial step or a frivolous intrusion?
The issue would seem to pose a particular dilemma for pro-family advocates, who must decide whether the Clinton presidency represents more of a threat to "family values" than forcing a mother to testify about her daughter's personal life. Normally outspoken conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum refused to comment on the issue. Other pro-family organizations, however, scoffed at the idea that Starr's subpoena threatened family values. "As I understand it, it is perfectly within the law," said Arne Owens, a spokesman for the Christian Coalition. "I believe the efforts to imply that [Starr's investigation] is somehow wrong are a partisan, ongoing public relations campaign by the administration to discredit the independent counsel and impede his work.
"The White House is very particular about pointing out what's legal and what isn't," Owens added. "So in that sense, I guess I agree with the White House."
Get Salon in your mailbox!