Jfc.
Jfc. You're getting two links on this one. The Salon one (the picture) has facts. Aside from the headline. Scotus didn't formally uphold it, it just refused to hear the case and therefore implicity upheld it.
The WaPo one, presumably in the interest of "fair and balanced" journalism quotes a physician - a radiologist - who is on the staff of a Catholic anti-abortion lobby group. Firstly, she is clearly not stating facts. Secondly, poorly done, WaPo, by suggesting this is a legitimate expert opinion simply presenting a different point of view.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/arkansas-abortion-pill-restriction-seen-as-both-protecting-women-and-a-major-rights-setback/2018/05/31/6fd64a4e-64e1-11e8-99d2-0d678ec08c2f_story.html?utm_term=.b1b44385efc9
https://www.salon.com/2018/05/31/supreme-court-upholds-arkansas-ban-on-safe-method-of-medication-abortion-its-a-dangerous-precedent/
https://www.salon.com/2018/05/31/supreme-court-upholds-arkansas-ban-on-safe-method-of-medication-abortion-its-a-dangerous-precedent/
The WaPo one, presumably in the interest of "fair and balanced" journalism quotes a physician - a radiologist - who is on the staff of a Catholic anti-abortion lobby group. Firstly, she is clearly not stating facts. Secondly, poorly done, WaPo, by suggesting this is a legitimate expert opinion simply presenting a different point of view.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/arkansas-abortion-pill-restriction-seen-as-both-protecting-women-and-a-major-rights-setback/2018/05/31/6fd64a4e-64e1-11e8-99d2-0d678ec08c2f_story.html?utm_term=.b1b44385efc9
https://www.salon.com/2018/05/31/supreme-court-upholds-arkansas-ban-on-safe-method-of-medication-abortion-its-a-dangerous-precedent/
https://www.salon.com/2018/05/31/supreme-court-upholds-arkansas-ban-on-safe-method-of-medication-abortion-its-a-dangerous-precedent/
Comments
Post a Comment