I can understand that they want to appear “balanced,” but I don’t think articles trying to gain sympathy for anti-choice whack jobs are the way to do it.
I’m sure The New York Times is so concerned about where all these hard working “pro-life” terrorists are going to go now that Dr. Tillers clinic will be closing for good since SOMEONE MURDERED HIM.
They already accomplished one goal this week; I don’t think fishing for sympathy is the appropriate response in this situation.
In another article, “Not All Abortions Are Equal,” The New York Times allows Ross Douthat to vomit up the reasoning that Dr. Tiller was killed because of pro-choice people.
Thanks douche bag.
As William said over at feministe says:
The issue is not that the pro-choice movement is composed of hardliners who refuse to give an inch, the issue is that the forced birth lobby is fighting for a direct abridgment of constitutional rights and a major change in common law (for most of modern western jurisprudence a fetus wasn’t considered a person, legally); they’re doing this with their only real justification being a religious belief. There isn’t room for compromise and this is not a country that is supposed to bow to mob rule. The forced birth lobby should be happy that property rights in this country have eroded to the point that they can’t be shot every time they commit criminal trespass, as theres sure as shit enough history for any doctor or clinic employee to argue that they were afraid for their safety.
So fuck you New York Times.