Oops. That is the very close to the argument made by people STILL believing Trump's Big Lie--just because the vote frauders did such a good job of covering their tracks doesn't mean the election wasn't stolen.
If the reason the story cannot be confirmed is to protect the child, that is a very good reason, but then the reporter who broke …
Oops. That is the very close to the argument made by people STILL believing Trump's Big Lie--just because the vote frauders did such a good job of covering their tracks doesn't mean the election wasn't stolen.
If the reason the story cannot be confirmed is to protect the child, that is a very good reason, but then the reporter who broke the story was irresponsible. It is possible to verify the story without outing the child.
Please. SCOTUS is not "now targeting contraception." ONE out of NINE justices mentioned revisiting Griswald v. Connecticut in a concurring opinion which no other justice joined. Even then if Griswald was reversed, the issue would simply go back to the states and how many states would pass a law banning contraception? I'm guessing none.
You are missing my point. A reporter being unable to verify a story doesn't mean it did not happen cannot be the standard for journalism. Right now there is some wiggle room because of the circumstances of the story. It is irresponsible to print a story for its political value. It also needs to be true. It may well prove to be true. We'll see. What is true is that the governor of South Dakota danced around the question of whether a 10-year should be required to carry to term. The interviewer sought repeatedly to get a straight answer, and finally got a version of "Two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, yes, the child would be required to carry to term.
Oops. That is the very close to the argument made by people STILL believing Trump's Big Lie--just because the vote frauders did such a good job of covering their tracks doesn't mean the election wasn't stolen.
If the reason the story cannot be confirmed is to protect the child, that is a very good reason, but then the reporter who broke the story was irresponsible. It is possible to verify the story without outing the child.
It's also not true that "thousands of women" were dying of illegal abortions before *Roe* -- in the 1930s and 40s, yes, but not by the 1970s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/
Please. SCOTUS is not "now targeting contraception." ONE out of NINE justices mentioned revisiting Griswald v. Connecticut in a concurring opinion which no other justice joined. Even then if Griswald was reversed, the issue would simply go back to the states and how many states would pass a law banning contraception? I'm guessing none.
You are missing my point. A reporter being unable to verify a story doesn't mean it did not happen cannot be the standard for journalism. Right now there is some wiggle room because of the circumstances of the story. It is irresponsible to print a story for its political value. It also needs to be true. It may well prove to be true. We'll see. What is true is that the governor of South Dakota danced around the question of whether a 10-year should be required to carry to term. The interviewer sought repeatedly to get a straight answer, and finally got a version of "Two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, yes, the child would be required to carry to term.
That's an excellent point, Terry, about the governor of South Dakota.