Last weekend, the New York Times Magazine’s cover story asked, “Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?” In the beginning of the story, the author clearly answers the question by pointing to all of the scientific evidence indicating no such syndrome exists. Yet, the story goes on and on and on (and then on some more) about one woman’s quest to indoctrinate female prisoners who have had abortions about the horrible damage the abortion has done to their psyches. If the syndrome doesn’t exist, why give her story so much attention?
A proponent of post-abortion syndrome described the movement’s strategy when it puts out flawed studies on the subject: “Even if pro-abortionists got five paragraphs explaining that abortion is safe and we got only one line saying it’s dangerous, the seed of doubt is planted.”
Isn’t this exactly what the Times has done with this story? Actually, it’s worse: the Times has given the one line equivalent to the science and the five paragraph equivalent to the woman pushing the flawed anti-abortion message.
- David S. Cohen