Re: Biased Wall Street Journal Article on Partial-Birth Ruling
A couple corrections/clarifications regarding my post earlier today:
1. I stated that the WSJ article never explains to the reader what partial-birth abortion is. At the end of its 15th paragraph, the article states that the federal law was more specific than the Nebraska law that was struck down in 2000, as it defines the “procedure … as one in which a fetus is killed after being partially extracted from the uterus.” I’m not sure how much this conveys to the reader, but it is more than nothing.
2. I stated that the article’s assertion that “the court’s majority embraced much of the vocabulary of the antiabortion movement” is “straight from Ginsburg’s dissent.” While the assertion is similar to what Ginsburg says, I shouldn’t have alleged that it came from her dissent. I believe that the assertion is overstated, but it is one that any number of readers of the opinion would plausibly arrive at on their own.
More generally, while I stand by my position that the article is slanted and misleading, I do not mean to call the reporter’s good faith into question. Among other things, writing on deadline on a topic on which neutral ground is difficult to find is not an easy or enviable task.