My senior project at Cal Poly SLO was a content analysis of the Los Angeles Times coverage of the abortion issue. My findings confirmed those of Times reporter David Shaw who also did an extensive report on abortion coverage in the major media.
In short, when covering abortion:
That brief review of abortion coverage was prompted by this article in Saturday's Union-Tribune on the federal government's subpoena of medical records of late-term abortions.
The article quotes:
The article, while interesting, is missing a big something. The "why". Why is the government asking for this information? There is no effort made to answer that question -- mainly because the only source of that information (with the government refusing to talk) would be a pro-life voice. That could have provided is some context that is missing in this article.
If you read the entire article, you get no hint of what the government is trying to prove by subpoenaing these records. The government's case is based upon the premise that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. That's why they want these records.
The telling thing is that if the procedure was medically necessary, then Planned Parenthood would be using them (with names and other identifying information redacted) in their case.
Tags