By Benjamin O’Loughlin
When a journalist gets his data wrong, that’s called bad research. But when a major newspaper weighs in on a nationwide debate and systematically distorts the issues at stake, that can’t be chalked up to human error.
A Feb. 16 article in the NY Times (here) is guilty on two counts.
First of all, it claims that emergency contraceptives have no potential to cause abortion. This assertion is cleverly worked into the article in the form of direct quotes from interviews, or presented simply as the opinion of “many experts,” effectively shielding the article from any accusation of openly lying.
However, no clinical evidence is presented to back up this claim.
What’s more, the article outright ignores studies to the contrary, assuming that none of the readers will be interested in reading what the FDA says about the contraceptives in question: the exact opposite.
On page 16
, the FDA review approving emergency contraceptive Ella openly acknowledges that Ella’s secondary mechanism of action is preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg, resulting in an abortion. The very same review asserts that Plan B, another popular emergency contraceptive, has the same effect.
So much for the opinion of “many experts.” However, what comes next is the important part. Having “proven” that religious leaders are wrong to identify emergency contraceptives with abortion, the article tries to reduce the healthcare hullabaloo to nothing more than contraception, effectively turning the whole debate into a moot point.
And the 1st Amendment? Religious freedom? The rights of insurance companies and health care agents, along with employees all across the board?
What about Obama forcing Americans to go against their deepest moral convictions? Not a peep. The whole article is a huge bluff.
It attacks our commitment to defending the life of the innocent unborn, hoping that we’ll take the bait, get bogged down in pharmaceutical details, and lose sight of the big picture—religious freedom.
When a major newspaper hides the facts from us, they do it with an agenda. In the NY Times’ case, that agenda seems to include sidelining religious freedom.
By doing so, they’re helping the government trample on the Bill of Rights. Now that’s what I call bad journalism.