John on November 17, 2007 at 7:15 pm
NY Times writer Kirk Johnson questions the timing of a proposed amendment which would define life as beginning at conception:
A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs may be headed for the ballot next year, raising the prospect of a heated local debate over abortion at the same time that Democrats are gathering here for their national convention.
Aside from the misleading headline (Proposed Colorado Measure on Rights for Human Eggs) the rest of the article appears to be presented fairly, two quotes from those opposing and two from supporters of the measure. However, on second look, what we have here isn’t a discussion of the measure but the NY Times acting as press release vehicle for Democratic boogey-mongering:
A spokesman for the Colorado Democratic Party, Matt Sugar, said he thought the measure was perhaps timed in an effort to highlight divisions over abortion in Colorado at a time when much attention will be focused here. But he said he thought it could play into the United States Senate race even more than the convention in August, by forcing candidates to talk about the subject. Senator Wayne Allard, a Republican, is not seeking re-election, creating an open seat.
Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal organization based in Arizona that supported the ballot measure before the Colorado Supreme Court, said the timing of the proposal was “pure coincidence,” to next year’s elections.
It’s just like the Times to lend space in their paper to staff members of the Democratic Party so they can accuse Republicans — not of lying or misleading or anything actually, you know, newsworthy — but of being…politicians.
Playing politics in an election season! Good lord, what will those dastardly Republicans stoop to next?!
So what if they are playing politics, Mr. Sugar?! What’s your point exactly? That’s it’s unfair to confront people with abortion when they’re voting? That Republicans are rude to try and confuse people with the facts? That you’d never do something so low?
But of course there is no point, which is why we’ve resorted to insinuation and questioning the timing. There’s no there there. The Times is content to just sling the Dems’ meaningless insinuation and then force a supporting group respond to the “how often do you beat your wife?” question. That’s fairness at the NY Times. We give the Dems two quotes to accuse you of whatever they’ve got (or nothing in this case) and you get two (shorter) blurbs to try and defend yourself. Where is the Times’ public editor to call out garbage like this?
If the NY Times devoted its vast resources to investigating abortion mills for just one or two months, they would certainly come up with some blockbuster exposes on America’s least regulated medical industry. Sadly, that day will never come.
Category: Pro-Life |