Even the New York Times Thinks the Radical Feminists Have Gone Too Far

When the radical pro-abortion feminists lose the New York Times, they know they are getting close to the precipice. From an editorial over the weekend responding to feminist groups' call for censorship of the pro-life ad being run on the Super Bowl broadcast by Focus on the Family:

"The National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other voices for protecting women’s reproductive freedom have called on CBS to yank it. Their protest is puzzling and dismaying.

A letter sent to CBS by the Women’s Media Center and other groups argues that the commercial “uses one family’s story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk” — a lame attempt to portray the ad as life-threatening. Others argue that even a mild discussion of such a divisive issue has no place in the marketing extravaganza known as the Super Bowl.

The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices."

Of course, that would make perfect sense - if these groups really were pro-choice, which of course they are not. They are pro-abortion in the best eugenicist tradition and they think that killing solves social problems. They are not liberal, they are not pro-women and they are only for one choice - the choice to kill. Even the NYT finds their behaviour "puzzling." But it is only puzzling if you believe their pro-choice rhetoric.

I've had a critical word or two to say about the NYT in the past. But in this case it is being balanced and reasonable, even if it still supports legalized private killing.