Seriously, what do you suppose the Times was thinking exposing this terrible saga to the light of day?
Seriously, what do you suppose the Times was thinking exposing this terrible saga to the light of day?
From post #84:
If abortion were connected to actual women--people like my friend Amy Richards, who had an abortion at 18 and a selective reduction last year when she found she was pregnant with triplets, or Nancy Flynn, who was a single mom finishing her BA at Cornell when she had an abortion and who told me she would "never have been able to have the rich life I've had and help my son as much as I have if I'd been the single mother of two children"--perhaps the mounting restrictions wouldn't pass so handily.
They actually believe they are helping the cause with this.
Now that another poster has identified Ms. Richards as a bit of a feminist icon (after all, she's on the campus lecture circuit, one of the ultimate badges of liberalism), it's possible the Times thought that her "star power" might somehow be persuasive.
This kind of thinking only makes sense when you spend too much time holed up in a newsroom in mid-town Manhattan (in the case of Ms. Barrett, the reporter) and too much time lecturing to naive 18-21 year-old Women's Studies majors (in the case of Ms. Richards).
It's likely The Times will soon realize its mistake, and the article will mysteriously diappear from their web site. This is just one more reason why FR IMHO has the constitutional right to post full articles, so when the Times a few years from now says "article about aborting 2 of 3 triplets? What are you talking about?" we'll have the historical record preserved.