Vox Wants More Abortion Clinics
July 24, 2014 - 12:57 pm
Vox’s Sarah Kliff dismissed the Gosnell abortion slaughterhouse trial as a “local story” that was not worth her time. That was when she wrote for the Washington Post. The Gosnell trial implicated more than just his own abortion mills. Planned Parenthood referred clients to him.
Could Kliff’s inattention to Gosnell have been because she is an ardent, militant supporter of unrestricted abortion, and Gosnell’s horrors inconvenience her politics?
Now Kliff writes for Vox, the prog explanatory journalism site that can’t seem to get anything right, and apparently local stories are in her bailiwick.
Kliff has a sad that Texas’ 2013 HB2 has increased regulation and improved standards in the state’s abortion clinics, and some clinics have closed as a result.
For many Texas clinics, these types of restrictions have proved too burdensome to comply with. ”It’s heartbreaking for us,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, the chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, told the New York Times shortly after her clinic closed this May. “It’s been a very difficult decision. I tried everything I can. I just can’t keep the doors open.”
Obamacare hurts businesses and kills jobs.
The EPA’s war on coal is ravaging the American coal industry. It’s also raising energy prices, which hurts businesses and makes our money worth less. Raising energy prices is inflationary.
Vox supports Obamacare and all of Obama’s energy regime, despite the fact that both hurt businesses and families.
Generally speaking, progs like Sarah Kliff have no problem with government enacting regulations that end up hurting businesses — as long as those businesses don’t abort babies.
Abortion mills remain the only businesses that progs want to leave almost entirely unregulated, and the abortion lobby is never ever described by progs for what it is — a cash-rich special interest that buys access by donating to Democrats. Even though that’s exactly what the abortion lobby is.
By the way, check out Kliff’s correction:
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the year that House Bill 2 passed. It passed in 2013, not 2011.
How does an explanatory journalist get such a basic fact wrong before hitting the publish button?