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.
Good point! I guess I'll go save a back-up copy of this article.
All I know is that successful people do not live in fifth-floor walk-ups in the East Village when they're in their mid-30s. I had a better place than that at the age of 23, and I was by no means rolling in cash or prestige.
If Amy Richards is what qualifies as a "successful" feminist these days, then we're succeeding beyond our wildest dreams in taking the country back from the hard left.
Rush read this article today, so it'll be preserved in his transcript archives.