In case you needed even more proof of the pro-abortion nature of the New York Times Editorial Board, the board posted the following on their blog last week:
What if Abortion Became Illegal?
A lot of elected officials say they want to see Roe v. Wade repealed, clearing the way for abortion to be made illegal. But few of them go the extra step and say what they would like to see done to women who have abortions. Throw a scared 17-year-old woman in jail? For how long?
Since a couple more Supreme Court nominations could doom Roe, the National Institute for Reproductive Health, an offshoot of Naral Pro-Choice New York, is trying to inject this question into the presidential campaign. They’re doing it in a TV commercial aimed at John McCain, who – unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — is strongly anti-choice.
The ad aims to focus voter attention on the harsh real-world consequences if Roe were overturned and abortion became a criminal act.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel to point out the biases in this piece. First of all, while the tone in the first two paragraphs is obviously slanted, it’s not over the top until the end of paragraph two –
“…John McCain, , who – unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — is strongly anti-choice.”
Anti-choice? While “pro-life” is the preferred term of those of us opposed to abortion, and “anti-abortion” is the media’s preferred term of the same group, “anti-choice” is the term used of us by Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Then, we get,
“…the harsh real-world consequences if Roe were overturned…”
Translation – “Without the ability of terminating an unwanted pregnancy, the world will be a dark, foreboding place.”
And last, but not least,
“…and abortion became a criminal act.”
Since when has anyone discussed making women criminally liable for having an abortion? The person who performs an abortion, yes. But, the woman who has an abortion has long been viewed as a victim. I mean I realize it’s an editorial, but come on.