Friday, February 25, 2005

The New York Times > National > Kansas Prosecutor Demands Files on Late-Term Abortion Patients

First off, the idea of subpoena-ing medical records under the guise of rooting out statutory rape raises suspiscions of a fishing expedition. No doubt this very real feeling will be expoited by the pro-abortion groups.

Second, are "late term abortions" the same as partial-birth abortions? If so, then a doctor performing hundreds of them a year would make the procedure fairly common (one per day if the doc doesn't work weekends and "hundreds" is defined as at least 200.) This refutes the lies of the pro-abortions lobbies when they claimed it was a rare procedure, an urban legend.

I tend to believe the NYT is equating later-term abortions and partial birth abortion from two points. The first being this:

"...the federal Justice Department has unsuccessfully sought similar records in its defense of a ban on a procedure sometimes used to end pregnancies after the first trimester that doctors call intact dilation and extraction and that critics call partial-birth abortion."

I see no reason to mention this so early in the article if it is not relevant to what follows.

And the second is this:

"Despite that law passed in 1998, Kansas has become a national magnet for late-term abortions because of a doctor in Wichita who performs hundreds of them each year...."

Why would Kansas be a national magnet for one particular doctor if that doctor is not doing something so common as a plain ol' abortion?

Having read the NYT for years now, I do know they are heavily pro-abortion and would have to couch this type of article is the most benign and euphemistically opaque terms as possible. This would also support my interpretation of late-term aborton and partial-birth abortion being the same.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?