There has been much talk about "Is there such a thing as "Post-Abortion Syndrome?" the cover story for the NYTimes Magazine today which is really a smear of post-abortive women and their suffering. Yes liberals have finally found a psychological syndrome that they say doesn’t exist.
The writer of the article Emily Bazelon, is a contributing editor of Legal Affairs, senior editor of Slate magazine, has written for Mother Jones, and featured by NPR.
Dawn Eden tipped me off about about Emily Bazelon advocacy and background.
Here is just a selection of some of the articles she has written in regards to abortion.
Alito v. O’Connor How the nominee tried to restrict Roe
Suffragette City A unfavorable look at Feminists for Life which over and over again quotes Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice.
She is also s the granddaughter of pro-abortion judge David L. Bazelon and a relative of Betty Friedan (her grandmother was Betty’s cousin). She has wrote favorably of Betty Friedan who wrote the Feminine Mystique and was one of the founders of NARAL.
Now the NYT containing an extremely biased articles is not exactly news but their having her write an article on this subject is like asking Rep. Tom Tancredo to write a balanced article on the border fence.
Amy Welborn looked at the same article the other day and had some excellent critiques of the article and its obvious bias. She ended saying:
I must be getting old. I remember a time when it was all about "listening to women’s stories."
I guess that day is over.
At least when the stories don’t have the ending you want.
Annie at the After Abortion blog has some good advice of what we can do to help post-abortive women and that there is in fact healing available – regardless of what the NYT says.
4 comments
What? Women with PAS can’t belong to the liberal victimocracy? Gee, what happened to the open-mindedness liberals are always telling us they’re famous for?
Having done research on PAS & how it affects men as well as women I could tell by a quick scan that this NY Times article is the typical pro-abort whitewash of the problem.
The reality is there is plenty of research out there to prove it exists. The pro-aborts use every excuse to deny the validity of the research. The funny part is, a lot of the most valid research that proves it exists has been do by pr-abort people who wanted to disprove it. & the so-called report by the APA will be another whitewash as they are 1 of the biggest deniers of its existance.
I am actually surprized the article even mentioned Rachel’s Vineyard as it does so much good in helping those suffering from PAS. I suppose it did to maintain a veneer of being “Fair & Balanced” even though, as you said, it is a smear job.
What this whole denial of the existance of the problem proves is it isn’t really about women & concern for their mental & physical health. Its all about the Benjamins.
I wrote a letter to the NYT editor this morning as a postabortive mother protesting the fact that my experience is so neatly denied by Ms Bazelon. I doubt it’ll do any good but I can’t let this baloney go unchallenged.
Weird, isn’t it? But the denial of the witness of women who have had abortions is similar to the denial of the pictures of aborted fetuses or living fetuses…What bugs me is the irrationality of relying on a particular medium only when it suits one’s perspective. Testimonies are evidence if they testify to my beliefs? You can’t argue with a picture unless it shows s’thing you don’t wish to see? Oh yes, and if Scripture doesn’t support your opinions, then there is a “bad translation” or the Church has been misinterpreting the Bible for more than a thousand years.
Soooo, war pictures are real; the slaughter of the unborn is propaganda. Rape testimonies are valid; PAS is an invention. And Genesis is a fairytale. Errgh!
Comments are closed.