"...Apart from the flawed example of Ms. Climaco, Mr. Hitt’s 7,800-word cover article provided a broad and intriguing look at a nation where the penal code allows prison sentences for a woman who has an abortion, the provider of the procedure or anyone who assisted. His interviews with doctors, nurses, police officers, prosecutors, judges and both opponents and advocates of abortion offered revealing personal perspectives on the effects of the criminalization of the procedure.
They must have hired Dan Rather to substitute for the editorial page editor, Rosenthal.
In other news...
MADRID (Reuters) - A 67-year-old Spanish woman became the world's oldest new mother on Saturday when she gave birth to twins, a Barcelona hospital said.
The woman, who became pregnant after receiving IVF treatment in Latin America, gave birth by caesarean section, a spokeswoman at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i San Pau told Reuters.
Both the woman, from the southern Spanish region of Andalucia, and babies were in good health, the hospital said, although the new-borns had been placed in an incubator.
The unidentified woman, who was giving birth for the first time, is one year older than Romanian Adriana Iliescu who had a baby girl in January 2005 at the age of 66. She had been pregnant with twins, but one died in the womb.
No surprises. The appropriately named reporter, Mr. Hitt, was led around by an abortion advocate, who subsequently used the NY Times article to raise money to promote international pressure against Latin American countries who are still trying to protect the fundamental right to life.
Definitely a Hitt Piece.
Also, the editors of the Times wrote to those who complained that there was no reason to doubt the facts of the story, and when Brian Calame came up with the true facts, they refused to issue a retraction.
Evidently this piece by Calame will be published on the NY Times OpEd page tomorrow. I'll be curious to know whether it actually appears in the printed newspaper tomorrow.
If so, much credit is due to Brian Calame for doing the right thing and publishing a full and very damning account of this scandalous article and the scandalous attempt to cover it up afterward. Shades of Dan Rather.
The truth didn't fit the NY Slimes' agenda so they printed the lies as truth. Nothing new in that with the Times ...
That's bizarre. I read the whole article, looked away for a minute, and now it says I have to pay the premium subscription to see it.
I wonder why that happened? Or why I was able to see it the first time?
Bump for business as usual at the NYT.
Thanks for posting!