I noticed an excellent item by Patterico today on selective reporting from the Los Angeles Times's David Savage regarding the "safety" of partial-birth abortion as compared to other methods of abortion and thought I'd excerpt it for you below:
Savage highlights the fact that some doctors say that the ban creates “significant health risks.”
What he doesn’t mention is that many others disagree. This disagreement is a major point of the opinion, and is stated again and again (though not mentioned by Savage). Here are some representative quotes from the opinion:
[W]hether the Act creates significant health risks for women has been a contested factual question. The evidence presented in the trial courts and before Congress demonstrates both sides have medical support for their position.
. . . .
There is documented medical disagreement whether the Act’s prohibition would ever impose significant health risks on women.
. . . .
The medical uncertainty over whether the Act’s prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude in this facial attack that the Act does not impose an undue burden.
Savage has done this exact same thing before on the exact same topic: noting that some experts say partial-birth abortion is safer — without noting that other experts disagree.
Here are some previous blog posts on NewsBusters relating to media coverage of the Court ruling yesterday:
