NRL News

To pro-abortion columnist, the only real “threat” are inconvenient truths

by | Oct 21, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

Washington Post opinion writer Catherine Rampell

Washington Post opinion writer Catherine Rampell

Washington Post opinion writer Catherine Rampell has impressive credentials, including previous stints at the New York Times, NPR, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

So since her work includes an “emphasis on data-driven journalism,” you might think she would at least consider the possibility that the advocacy piece she relies on for her most recent column might be just a tad partisan. But…nope.

Politics in the Exam Room: A Growing Threat” is treated as if it came down from Mt. Sinai written on stone tablets.

Since the debate over guns (which is part of the report) is not our issue, let me focus on what is: abortion. As always, pro-life measures or what women-helping groups provide for pregnant women are dismissed because the appropriate “experts” disagree.

For example, for all the reasons that we’ve written about for years, which begin with basic biology, an induced abortion will increase the risk that a woman will subsequently be stricken with breast cancer. That is not, as Rampell insists it is, “junk science.” It is rather science that offers an inconvenient truth and therefore must be mocked and dismissed and shoved into the corner.

If “junk science” is the second way “states are trying to politicize medicine,” what is the third, according to Rampell? That “involves intervening in the provision of care itself…”

Meaning what?

“Ultrasounds,” for one, “mandatory waiting periods for abortions,” for another. Hmmm.

Is having an abortion without seeing whom it is that a woman is obliterating a “data-driven” decision? Hardly.

The whole point of the assembly-line abortion machinery is to keep the woman (or girl) from considering her options; from taking a deep breath; and from allowing her to heed the better angels of her nature.

In a word, the objective is to keep her ignorant of the emotional, physical, and moral implications of what she is about to do.

“Look, there obviously is a role for policymakers to play in setting laws that promote public health,” Rampell concludes, in her best pretend middle-of-the-road manner. “But those laws should be grounded in scientific evidence, not attempts to reward campaign donors, appease the political base and shame women.”

So, to be clear, there are no reasons to pass any of these laws except to “appease the political base and shame women”?

Are legislators “appeasing the political base” when they pass a law that says you can’t abort an unborn baby who is capable of experiencing excruciating pain, a capability which an abundance of scientific evidence says begins no later than at 20 weeks?

Are they “shaming women” when they pass legislation to prevent dismemberment abortions–abortions that twist off little arms and legs by the use of brute manual force, using a long stainless steel clamping tool? You know, the kind of “technique” that if used on an animal would rightly cause an uproar.

Let me suggest to Rampell and her ilk, there is plenty of “scientific evidence,” just not the kind that supports their position. Which is?

That there is never, ever an abortion they wouldn’t happily perform.

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at

Categories: Media Bias