The New York Times Got it Wrong Again This Morning

To:  Interested Parties
From:  NARAL Pro-Choice America
Date:  February 16, 2005
Subject: The New York Times Got it Wrong Again This Morning

Twice in the last month The New York Times has run front-page stories about abortion. The first one concerned a speech by Senator Hillary Clinton in which she reinforced her support for the pro-choice position. However, the story gave the opposite impression.

Today, the second story, "For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks," gives more space to this theory about political parties distancing themselves from the choice issue.

This story ignores the reality that all recent polling shows that a majority of Americans continue to support a woman's right to choose and reject efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Election Day exit polling showed strong support for the pro-choice position.

What's missing is a further examination of why the anti-abortion groups refuse to discuss prevention-an issue that surfaced in both stories. Why are they allowed to push legislative initiatives but dismiss questions about women's access to birth control?

For instance, today's story mentions the ad we placed in the conservative Weekly Standard magazine. The goal of this "open letter to the right-to-life community" is to challenge the other side to work with us to pass prevention-based legislation that would reduce the need for abortion.

We have launched an online component to this campaign with ads running on blog spaces and on Salon.com. These ads encourage activists to contact the right-to-life groups and urge them to join us in pushing for the prevention agenda. (www.alternet.org) Later today, we are issuing challenges to a bipartisan group of anti-choice Senators and House members asking them to support prevention legislation. 

The public wants to know whether groups like the National Right to Life Committee and Senators like Sam Brownback who sponsor abortion-related legislation are willing to work with us to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion. They may not want to answer questions about prevention, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked.

This approach changes the tone of the debate and asks the right-to-life community to confirm whether they oppose women's access to birth control, the morning-after pill, and family planning services that don't include abortion. 

On another front, The New York Times erroneously reported that NARAL Pro-Choice America had switched its position on a fetal anesthesia bill. NARAL Pro-Choice America does not oppose this bill and has never held a different position.

Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032