“”She may be a liar and evil but I didn’t see anything at all indicating she admitted to embellishing her story””
It’s simply amazing that so many freepers can jump on a story, comment on it without actually reading it. I guess the others saw something we couldn’t see as far as a “retraction” was concerned.
I read it and stand by my original comment. She said that it boils down to her word against the doctors and, while she isn't backing down on her word she doesn't think that's enough to get anything done to the doctor or hospital. Not anything close to admitting she embellished it.
OK, FTA:
"Some say I should name and shame the doctor that refused to do the procedure. If I knew why he refused I might have done just that, but since I know that there are many possible reasons that he did not do it? I’ve left him to deal with the internal procedures in place.
Right there, ABW ran under her own goalposts. The story started out as
DOCTOR REFUSES TO PERFORM LIFE-SAVING ABORTION —
Religious reasons cited
but then suddenly became something quite different:
"Doctor Exercises Professional Discretion."
That is, "Dog bites man". No story after all.
True, this is not a "retraction" in the proper sense; it is, however, a self-immmolating admission against interest, which is the best one could hope for from such a source. Angry, "entitled" liberals are never wrong in their own eyes, so they don't see how their own words prove themselves wrong to everybody else.