It's not so much that she's factually mistaken, it's just that she's uncharitable to the other side. You can tell right away in the title "Anti-Choicers". Credible journalists' policy is to call them anti-abortion. She's essentially just name calling right from the start.
I mean, I admit, I am a little biased, as I'm pro-life myself, and I fully recognize there are many problems within the pro-life movement, but I at least have the common courtesy not to call pro-choice people anti-life.
Considering that there's far more support for taking away health services for low-income women like Planned Parenthood and taking away reproductive rights than for providing support for women or babies after they give birth, I think her characterization is devastatingly accurate. If you object to it, then feel free to prove it wrong.
Tone arguments aside, she's not pulling punches because she's trying to defend women against those who would set us back forty years in women's rights. And she's backing up her statements with facts. So again, I invite you to cite your sources if you wish to dispute her claims.
Wow what a fair and balanced and completely unbiased article.
At least she cites her sources. If you wish to cite yours to refute her, you're invited to do so.
It's not so much that she's factually mistaken, it's just that she's uncharitable to the other side. You can tell right away in the title "Anti-Choicers". Credible journalists' policy is to call them anti-abortion. She's essentially just name calling right from the start.
I mean, I admit, I am a little biased, as I'm pro-life myself, and I fully recognize there are many problems within the pro-life movement, but I at least have the common courtesy not to call pro-choice people anti-life.
Considering that there's far more support for taking away health services for low-income women like Planned Parenthood and taking away reproductive rights than for providing support for women or babies after they give birth, I think her characterization is devastatingly accurate. If you object to it, then feel free to prove it wrong.
Tone arguments aside, she's not pulling punches because she's trying to defend women against those who would set us back forty years in women's rights. And she's backing up her statements with facts. So again, I invite you to cite your sources if you wish to dispute her claims.