I knew I tempted fate with my column last week about typographical errors and other minor mistakes, but was publishing a major blunder the same day inevitable? Probably. That’s what happened, anyway. And, of course the blunder was about one of the most radioactive issues of our time -- abortion. The blunder was that we made it appear that our Editorial Board recommended a “No” vote on the Nov. 7 ballot issue that would enshrine abortion rights in the Ohio constitution. We did not make that recommendation. We are not endorsing either way on Issue 1 on the ballot. The mistake does have one small upside, in opening a door for a discussion about our non-endorsement decision, and some related matters. The first thing to know is that the overriding question on any issue taken up by the Editorial Board of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer is whether we can move the proverbial needle. If we don’t believe we can have an impact, we skip the issue. It’s an important point. We know that on many issues, we do have a lot of firepower, much to our detractors’ dismay. We work diligently to use it responsibly. But we also know how limited our resources are, and we won’t waste them on matters we cannot influence. That’s why you don’t see editorials by us scolding Russia for invading Ukraine or Hamas for its atrocious attack on Israel. Neither the Russians nor Hamas will change their behavior because our Editorial Board says they should. Abortion is such an issue. This country has been debating it for decades, and people not only made up their minds on it long ago – they became entrenched. No one is changing their minds. It’s also the third rail of third rails, with passions so intense that many avoid discussing it. For many who oppose Issue 1, supporters are baby killers. For many who support Issue 1, opponents are misogynists bent on controlling women. Middle ground does not exist. Face it: an endorsement by our board on Issue 1 would not impact a single vote. That’s not the case with Issue 2, the proposal to legalize recreational marijuana. We know from the communication we receive that many readers remain on the fence, so what we say might matter. (We recommend a “yes” vote.) On Cleveland’s Issue 38, a participatory budget proposal, we hope we can have an impact. The structure of it is terrible and dangerous. (We recommend a “no” vote.) On abortion, rather than issue an endorsement, we asked members of our board to write short essays expressing their individual views. That allows readers to digest the variety of arguments for and against the proposal. The essays won’t change any minds, but it might help people understand why their neighbors have “Vote Yes” or “Vote No” signs in their yards. Until last weekend, we thought we had handled the abortion issue sensitively and sensibly. On Sunday, however, we published our rundown of editorial endorsements in The Plain Dealer, boldfacing the words “Yes” and “No” on the various issues on the ballot. With Issue 1, we said “No endorsement; editorial board essays instead.” But we boldfaced the word “No,” which gave the initial appearance that we recommended you vote against it. The timing of that error was not opportune. My column last week was about minor mistakes we make and the angry notes we receive about them. I called on readers to tone down the fury about typos. The column goes out by email on Saturdays and is published in The Plain Dealer Forum on Sundays. On Saturday, the column responses heartened me, with well over 90 percent offering kind words and reassurance. On Sunday, because of the endorsement blunder, the tone changed. I’ve heard from more than 50 people criticizing us for that bold-facing mistake, saying they can tolerate the typos I discussed but not an error like the one with Issue 1. They’re right. The boldface issue is not a minor mistake. Part of my job is to see that kind of thing coming and make sure we have backstops in place to prevent it. We did not, and that’s on me. Our solution for the future is to have a rigid standard for our endorsement rundowns, one from which we will not veer. I do want to say that the harm of the mistake is solely to our reputation, not to voting on Issue 1. As I’ve said, no one is voting based on what we say. The boldfacing of the word “No” has no impact on the Ohio amendment. Some of the people who wrote also criticized our decision not to endorse, saying it was out duty to take a stand on abortion. On Monday, the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party issued a statement calling the decision “appalling” and “cowardly” and “nothing short of institutional cowardice.” That’s ridiculous. Our editorials are not about taking stands just for the sake of taking stands, as I’ve noted. They are about making a difference. I’m at cquinn@cleveland.com. Thanks for reading. | 