What’s news: early next year the FDA and the CDC will next convene a “scientific meeting” to discuss the “medical mystery” surrounding the deaths of four California women, each who died several days after taking Mifeprex (aka, RU-486 or the “abortion pill”) and each who appears to have suffered from “a rare and highly lethal bacterial infection.” So reports the New York Times’ Gardiner Harris today.
What’s not news: what someone from an organization with a mission to “bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy” thinks about all of this. What’s also not news: what someone from an organization committed to “the fundamental right of each individual … to manage his or her own fertility” thinks about all of this.
Things look good for the first twenty paragraphs of Harris’ piece. Readers get the who, what, when and why, and a doctor/spokesperson for the manufacturer of Mifeprex declines Harris’ invitation to speculate about “what is going on regarding these rare and really serious … infections,” telling Harris, “I don’t have an answer for you, and because of that I don’t have any running theories.”
Unfortunately, in the fifth-to-last paragraph, Wendy Wright weighs in (as she has in so many media reports on issues ranging from RU-486 to Terry Schiavo) to proclaim Mifeprex “unsafe” (looks like the FDA and CDC can go ahead and cancel their “scientific meeting,” then). Harris doesn’t even try to hide the fact that he’s reporting speculation, writing that Wright, of Concerned Women for America, “also speculated that more women were dying after using the drug but that their deaths were going unreported” (emphasis added), something which itself should have gone unreported.
But if you’re going to include in an article on a life-and-death medical matter wild speculation from a partisan with no medical training, you must — any White House reporter can tell you how this works — also include wild speculation from an untrained partisan from the other side of the debate. (Alas, Harris has a history of quoting partisans speculating and pontificating in abortion-related articles.)
Seems Harris could only come up with a pro-choice partisan with a medical degree, Dr. Scott J. Spear, the chairman of Planned Parenthood’s national medical committee. Says Dr. Spear, “I think it’s dangerous to speculate in the absence of good data,” but only after offering something that sounds suspiciously speculative — “[The deaths are] all in California, so is this a local issue?”
Doctor, heal thyself! And while you’re at it, see if you can help a reporter mend his ways.

I'm new to this site, it looks very interesting; I'm a big fan (or opponent?) of bad (partisan/biased) Journalism, whatever the media. I'm a regular visitor to Media Matters of America, and they've gotten so good as to be attacked on-air (repeatedly) by Bill O'Reilly: an honor I hope you all here might aspire to.
Regards the item to which I'm posting: As soon as I saw it online in the NYTimes, I knew it was partisan/biased... from the headline... "Deaths After Abortion Pill To Be Studied By Officials"
"Abortion Pill"? Only one side in the heated debate over this highly personal (but strangely political) issue would use the word "Abortion" to describe this pill. The previous term "Morning After" was too benign I guess; one side of that issue needed a more potent bogey-word...
"Temporary Infertility" would have been more accurate; but "Abortion" is just plain incorrect: this pill, as I understand it, not only has nothing to do with that surgical procedure, but actually prevents the necessity of ever having one. And if you agree with that, then you have to wonder at the (strangely) political use of that word, not only in the headline of the story, but six additional times in the story; even though it's obvious that such a pill's only relationship to that surgical procedure is to prevent one: so again, why call it that? Wouldn’t “Non-Abortion Pill” be more to the truth?
And in the ninth paragraph, the ridiculously contrived distinction between what the author characterizes as "medical abortions" and "surgical abortions" is established in the statement that 500,000 "medical abortions" have resulted in the U.S. from this drug; when in truth you would say that all those procedures were prevented from ever happening; they never happened; that zero abortions of any kind have resulted from taking RU-486.
Gardiner Harris is obviously a shameless partisan/biased journalist in the debate over a (strangely political) highly personal health issue.
(Partisan/biased journalist? That's an oxymoron; the correct term is "Publicist".)
Posted by Dem02020 on Thu 24 Nov 2005 at 12:15 AM
Actually, RU-486, or mifeprex, is not the same as Plan B, or the morning after pill. RU-486 does induce abortion when you're already pregnant. Point taken, though, about calling it an "abortion pill": that particular phrasing already reveals the biases of the headline writer and reporter.
Posted by laurak on Tue 29 Nov 2005 at 09:25 AM
I love when people rant on for pages about something they have little to no understanding of. Take Demi, who rants about RU-486, complaining that it should be called anything but an abortion pill, when that is it's purpose...to cause abortions. Even the medical profession calls it that, but what does that matter? Demi charges bias, LauraK reinforms her that it IS in fact an abortion pill, then somehow agrees that this was a massive conservative bias. This is so blantantly blind, I don't even know how to feel about it.
Posted by WolvenBear on Fri 16 Dec 2005 at 03:32 AM