The
Washington Post doesn't want you to know what partial-birth abortion
does to a baby. Consider how reporter Joan Biskupic quoted Douglas Johnson
of the National Right to Life Committee in her article on the Seventh
Circuit Court upholding Wisconsin's partial-birth abortion ban: "This
makes it likely that the Supreme Court will rule ... on whether
Roe v.
Wade covers pulling most of a living baby feet-first outside of the womb."
Here's how Jo Thomas of the
New York Times transcribed the same statement:
Johnson expected "that the Supreme Court will rule, perhaps next year, on
whether
Roe v.
Wade covers pulling most of a living baby feet-first
outside of the womb, puncturing her skull, and removing her brain."
Somehow the
Post managed to chop off that nasty bit about skulls and
brains. Are the sensibilities of its readers too delicate to handle this
description, which, frankly, could have been much more graphic than it
was? Or does the
Post resort to partial truth when it comes to partial
birth?
