They don't know they're biased: Yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Tommy Thompson, announced that it was extending government-funded health insurance for low-income mothers to their "fetuses" too. Out came the cries of anguish from abortion-rights supporters that this was a back-alley (nice touch, huh?) approach to overturning Roe v. Wade.

In an article in the Washington Post abortion-rights activist Kate Michelman analyzed: "It is a legal pathway to making all abortions under all circumstances a crime. If the administration were sincere about improving healthy childbearing . . . it could provide state funding for pregnant women."

On the other hand, abortion opponents saw little reason to celebrate.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, portrayed it as a political rather than legal victory for his camp.

"The Supreme Court has ruled there is a fundamental right of privacy which trumps any state interest in protecting the health of the fetus. This decision today has no bearing on that issue. Legally, it's apples and oranges," Johnson said. "But this can be cited as another reason why people should reassess the state of abortion law. It's obviously the kind of development we hope to see more of."

Let me quickly point out that states have been allowed for several years, starting in the Clinton Administration, to apply for a waiver allowing the insurance to covered unborn children.

So where does the bias come in? Well, if you read the whole article, you'll see that it contains twice as many quotes from abortion-rights supporters than it does from abortion opponents (four vs. two). Also note that the only lawyer quoted is an abortion-rights supporter.

I'm also wondering exactly how good of a lawyer Peter Rubin is. He's identified as a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. But then he's quoted as saying: "This does not overrule Roe v. Wade. But it is significant, because it would for the first time put into federal law the concept that from the moment of conception, a fetus is a child. To suggest in federal law that . . . a one-cell zygote is a full human being is at variance with the American legal tradition and does ultimately present a threat to women's reproductive rights -- and not just abortion, but also contraception."

Sorry, professor, but this isn't a law, it's a regulation. That's why Thompson can announce the change without approval from Congress. The regulation, legally, would carry no weight with a judge, who would have no compunction striking it from the books because there is no legislative action behind it.

My senior project at Cal Poly SLO was on how abortion was covered by the media. Nearly a decade later, newspapers aren't any more even-handed.