Media Bias

 

New York Times too busy trashing supporters of women-protecting laws to see why they are so important

By Dave Andrusko
I shouldn’t but I actually do enjoy reading the New York Times’ editorials on abortion. I suppose it’s because the Times’ has long been the flagship publication of the Abortion Movement—and it’s reassuring, in a way, that their editorials on abortion are so poorly written and argued.

The Times’ editorial board is so dug in that its members do not even think it necessary to engage the arguments that supporters of laws intended to protect women offer. So you get editorials with headlines such as “Quackery and Abortion Rights.”
In a mere 541 words, you read such calm, thoughtful descriptions as “deception,” “bizarre,” “kooky claims” (by which they mean “post-abortive syndrome” which to the Times is fabricated from whole cloth rather than the product of a raft of peer-reviewed studies), “orchestrat[ed] testimony,” and [of course] “dishonest.”

To read the Times, there is nothing—nothing—to be said for requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital when there are complications. Pro-abortionists say there is no need because hospitals would have to admit women in these cases.
Of course! That’s obviously not the issue.
Testifying in a recent Alabama case, Dr. Geoffrey Keyes , president of the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities, said, “If you perform procedures, and someone goes to the hospital, you know what transpired in the procedure.” He added, “You’re not starting from scratch. You’ve been there in the whole process.”

What’s lacking when (in this case) the abortionist does not have admitting privileges? “There’s no continuity of care, no credentialing of physicians in the community,” Dr. Keyes testified.
And, obviously, the assumption is that abortions are safe, safe, safe anyway. Really?
Judge Edith Jones wrote the unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that upheld provisions of Texas’ H.B. 2, challenged by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and several Texas abortion clinics.

In her 34-page opinion, Jones noted something never mentioned in press accounts: “Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion.”

Moreover (returning to the issue of admitting privileges), Judge Jones wrote

“Witnesses on both sides further testified that some of the women who are hospitalized after an abortion have complications that require an OB/GYN specialist’s treatment,” Jones added. “Against Planned Parenthood’s claims that these women can be adequately treated without the admitting-privileges requirement, the state showed that many hospitals lack an Ob/Gyn on call for emergencies.”

The Times’ editorial board can write as if there is no rhyme or reason for women-protecting laws. But they would be as wrong as they are dismissive.

Source: NRLC News