Tuesday, February 01, 2005
journalistic integrity is Satan's tool
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Judgment awarded in abortion-breast cancer case
1st of its kind against clinic for failing to inform patient of increased risk
Posted January 27, 2005
Which begins with this stunner:
For the first time, an abortion clinic accepted an order of judgment for performing the procedure without informing the patient of psychological risks and increased risk of breast cancer.Reading the various citations of this article around the right side of the Internets, it seems pretty clear that a "court" has "judged" that an "abortion clinic" was found liable for not telling a 15 year old girl (who is now 19 and cancer-free) about one study that links youth abortion with increased rates of breast cancer. This argument is a major part of the anti-abortion rhetoric, so the fact that a court accepted it is simply stunning. MAJOR victory for the right.
The lawsuit against the All Women's Health Services clinic in Portland, Ore., was the second of its kind in the U.S. to be successfully prosecuted but the first to obtain a judgment.
Even the plaintiff's attorney got into the act about the profundity of the moment:
Jonathan Clark, attorney for the 19-year-old plaintiff, told WorldNetDaily he believes the judgment "makes a pretty powerful statement about the science," indicating the clinic was not willing to argue against the claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.
"This case was set to be tried in Multnomah County, which is a very liberal county where folks are inclined to lean towards abortion," he said. "But in the trial setting, the science would have come under close scrutiny."
Well, I was sure there was nothing especially important they left out about this case, the ruling, etc. After all, why would good faithful people want to try to deceive us? Isn't that the work of the devil?
But then, consumed by that same devil's spirit, I decided to Google-News the case. And I'm shocked. Shocked! It turns out, the communist mouthpiece known as the Washington Times also has a story about the case. The only difference is that THEY chose to interview someone on the other side, who trotted out this OBVIOUS lie:
David R. Foster, a Portland lawyer who represented the clinic in the case, said the clinic is bankrupt. Asked why it agreed to settle, he said that decision was made by the insurance firm for the defunct business, "based on the [probable] cost of a defense."Sure, sure. Tell that one to your golf buddies in HELL. Oh, wait. The clinic has been closed for two years? The decision to settle was based on a cost/benefit analysis of buying the girl off rather than paying a couple of lawyers to file a brief or two on the off chance that a wacko judge wouldn't throw the case out of court within seconds? I feel somehow ... somehow ... misled? Is it possible?
"I predict we would have won if it had gone to trial," he said.
Oh, D. James Kennedy of the Center for Reclaiming America ... why hast thou forsaken me?