By Emily Miller, Inside Politics Daily
The New York Times and its liberal agenda hit an all-time low when it ran a Sunday magazine story in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she assumed after Roe v. Wade that more women would be aborting babies who came from “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — and neither the reporter nor her editors questioned or highlighted the comment.
Advertisement – story continues below
When I read Melinda Henneberger’s piece about the NY Times story, I emailed her “jaw. on. floor.”
Yet Melinda’s piece – in which she clearly tried to give Bazelon the benefit of the doubt and the chance to defend herself – did not elicit either outrage from the public or a word of explanation from The New York Times.
Frankly, I don’t know if the Manhattan-bound denizens of the Times even know that it is shocking and horrific for someone to suggest aborting fetuses because their parents are poor. They probably don’t know anyone who is poor, or who believes that abortion is the taking of a life.