All four papers included descriptions of the gruesome abortion procedure, although none described the suctioning of the unborn child's brain from the skull as the manner of ending the fetus's life, and the NY Times failed to mention the brain suction at all. While all four papers also put "partial-birth abortion" in quotes or chalked the label up to pro-life rhetoric, the NY Times's
Linda* Greenhouse piled on, calling the label "provocative" and describing the ruling as a shift from a focus on the "rights" of women to the "fate of fetuses."
Among the four papers, Greenhouse gave readers this earliest description of the outlawed abortion method, noting in the fourth paragraph of her article: "The banned procedure, known medically as 'intact dilation and extraction,' involves removing the fetus in an intact condition rather than dismembering it in the uterus.""Intact condition" almost sounds "better" than "dismembering" until you remember that it's an unborn child that is killed either way. Of course Greenhouse, like her colleagues at other newspapers, avoids the point that abortion does end the life of the fetus killed.
In fact, Greenhouse found time to take a swipe at pro-life groups a few paragraphs later, saying that the term "partial-birth abortion" is a "provocative label" that pro-lifers invented to shift "the public focus of the abortion debate from the rights of women to the fate of fetuses."
Fate of fetuses? These are unborn human beings, not puppies at the local pound. A Court reporter could at least note this is a conflict between a woman's right under Roe to choose an abortion versus the right of the state to safeguard human life.
Like Greenhouse's description of the banned abortion procedure, USA Today's Joan Biskupic detailed the procedure early enough in her story to appear on the paper's front page.
Unlike Greenhouse, Biskupic mentioned that an abortionist "suctions out the fetus' brain to collapse the head and allow delivery." Even so, the reporter failed to explicitly describe the brain suctioning as the cause of fetal death in the procedure.
The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times similarly explain the D&X procedure but bury the description deep in their articles, paragraph 20 out of the 31-paragraph Post story and paragraph 19 out of the 20-paragraph LA Times write-up.
Related Items:
- Nets Separate from 'Partial-Birth' Term, Frame Story Around Loss of 'Abortion Rights'
- CBSNews.com On 'What the Law Calls a Partial Birth Abortion'
- CNN.com Finds Court Upholding Partial Birth Ban Unremarkable
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
provocative
April 19, 2007 - 11:27 ET by iveseenitallNEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
"Provacative"!! M
April 19, 2007 - 11:32 ET by iveseenitall"Provacative"!! My God. This from the liberal media? What self-absorbed hypocrites the lefties are! Like Rosie condemning Fox for "right -wing bias". Which planet do these people live on?
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Gee, I wonder what they
April 19, 2007 - 11:38 ET by Dave RGee, I wonder what they consider the term child murderer to be?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Partial Birth Abortion Is What It Is
April 19, 2007 - 11:40 ET by emjem24Gosh, now the MSM fights over what to call Partial Birth Abortion. It think their continued collusion with Planned Parenthood is disgusting. I think that it's more a failure to analyze exactly what Partial Birth Abortion is. Instead, they run away like little children in a fit.
I've never been pregnant nor have I had children (yet). I don't find this procedure to be some inalienable right set out by the Constitution. I also don't think that abortion is some right under the Constitution. Just because the SCOTUS ruled that abortion is constitutional doesn't mean it should be the law of the land. Until it becomes part of the Constitution, it's not one of the Bill of Rights or a Constitutional amendment.
I find the pro-abortion forces and the MSM that enables them patently dishonest. How they think that a third trimester "fetus" is not a baby or a person is beyond me. How do they explain why more and more OB-GYN doctors in the UK are refusing to do abortions? Why? Because abortion is something that contradicts their moral beliefs that's why.
Abortion proponents and their MSM enablers will continue to whine and protest and bamboozle American women into believing that it's some inalienable right and it's not. I think if you're promiscuous (men and women) and live that sort of lifestyle you should live with those choices. Some people (both men and women) are too lazy or thoughtless to put on a condom or use birth control. If you're not ready for a baby, take the proper precautions. Don't use abortion as your "way out" from what you see as a mistake. Life is precious and many Americans often take it for granted or want a do over to pretend that they weren't responsible enough or far-thinking enough to see the consequences of their own actions. Very sad.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Fate of fetuses? These are
April 19, 2007 - 12:02 ET by kimschPuppies at the pound are actually treated better. They have actually waited until a stray dog or cat delivers her puppies or kittens before spaying. If the animal is pregnant, she should deliver her litter before they sterilize her. Can't abort those fetuses.
Good point.
April 19, 2007 - 12:07 ET by Ken ShepherdGood point.
fate of fetuses
April 19, 2007 - 12:32 ET by elmcclinticEspecially female fetus, future women. Where is the outrage from the feminists?
provocative?
April 19, 2007 - 12:03 ET by Gary Hallpartial-birth abortion - Janet Greenhouse piled on, calling the label "provocative"
Look, it should be called what it is - Killing. Partial birth killing, or partial birth murder. That's what it is. Once you can call it what it is, then you are allowed into the discussion of what should or should not be allowed.
Provocative labeling, I sense, according to Greenhouse's view, would be calling Cho Seung-Hui a murderer.
Tha act is "provocative", why
April 19, 2007 - 17:10 ET by taznarTha act is "provocative", why shouldn't the name be?
Answer: Because a woman is more likely to have a partial birth abortion if she's only got partial information to decide with. Realistically, if the women are not informed, how can there be informed consent? If the public is not informed, how can there be informed debate?
How about we have a compromis
April 19, 2007 - 17:56 ET by Gat New YorkHow about we have a compromise for Ms. Greenhouse. Let's approve such an abortion but only after the woman is made to watch a video of the actual procedure. These people treat unborn children as inanimate toys that they can return to the store. They should watch as an unborn child is partially extracted from the womb so the head is exposed and then punctured until brain matter seeps out. This whole issue makes me sick. Slime like Hillary Clinton demanding Constitutional rights for women?! What about the rights of the unborn children? These same people care SO much about the rights of terrorists in Gitmo.
it's to be expected
April 19, 2007 - 12:06 ET by tumbler_2007Naturally the leftist media has to rain on this parade, nothing else can be done about it. The Court has given abortion lobbyists no other option.
Of course, these same sickies never found anything provocative in every NARAL rant about "coat-hanger abortions" that helpless girls were going to turn to if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. And the media is happy enough to spread that kind of specious slime.
Abortionists would make Der F
April 19, 2007 - 12:23 ET by ratso ferrariAbortionists would make Der Fuhrer proud ,they are much more cost effective compared to gas chambers.
If the fetus survives having
April 19, 2007 - 12:37 ET by MidAmericaIf the fetus survives having it's brain sucked out is it then raised as a liberal?
...As well as having any te
April 19, 2007 - 12:44 ET by MightyMouth...As well as having any testicles removed.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Ken, the AP would only call it "dilation and extraction"
April 19, 2007 - 12:37 ET by RJKen, the AP story carried in my paper (the ONLY story on the topic) limited it's description to the neutral term, "dilation and extraction." Since this is the blue, blue state of Connecticut, that's not surprising.
Beyond that, the story was focused on the slippery slope aspects that are the real reason Democrats, the ACLU, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the media oppose the gruesome procedure. The story made a BIG deal of that, with quotes from all the above organizations.
You mentioned "Democrats
April 19, 2007 - 13:54 ET by ThisnThatYou mentioned "Democrats" -- they (Democrats, that is) call themselves "Democratic" -- now that's a provocative term!
Good point, particularly si
April 19, 2007 - 22:57 ET by Ken ShepherdGood point, particularly since AP writeups hit a lot of papers without Washington bureaus.
Okay. If the New York Times f
April 19, 2007 - 15:31 ET by Gat New YorkOkay. If the New York Times finds it objectionable why not call it what it is. Extracting a 5 or 6 month old fetus from the womb so the head is exposed and then puncturing the baby's skull to let the brain matter seep out. I cannot use the proper language the the New York Slime and their baby killing supporters deserve.