I think we both know the reason: they want to justify the continued slaughter of the unborn. The advances in ultrasound technology have been helping the pro-life cause, so they're looking for some kind of counter-argument, and frankly, they're grasping at straws.
Well, you've also got to remember that liberalism runs very strongly through the scientific community. I am presently in an academic setting and it is standard practice to look down on any research that is privately funded, especially if it is funded by a pharmaceutical company. For many scientists, your funding is only pure if it comes from the government. However, you are just as likely to overstate the importance of any data to justify the renewal of a government funded grant as you are a pharmaceutical. And you are also much more prone to channel the results to confirm whatever pet theory meets the approval of liberal ideology - witness most global warming research. The two "premiere" scientific journals - Nature and Science - are AS political, if not more so than anything you will see in the NYT. It is considered very presitigious to be published in these journals, but, if you examine them closely you will see that most of the articles fall within a very narrow range of topics - and they almost all conform to the liberal view of the world. Therefore, any paper extolling the virtues of embryonic stem cells will be strongly considered by these journals. The same for any paper which purports to support the failed global warming models. And anyone who departs from this orthodoxy is the subject of scathing criticism and not so subtle threats to pull their grant funding!