The New York Times does it again! In their report regarding South Dakota's drive to ban most abortions in their state, other than to physically protect the life of the mother, they simply can NOT use the term "pro-life" - it is always "advocates opposed to abortion rights" - as if there is a natural "right" to kill one's children, if those children are deemed somehow inconvenient. The entire story drips with bias and prejudice against advocates for the lives of the unborn. The civil rights of the unborn are never even mentioned. The paper, of course, eagerly quotes several (shall we call them) anti-life advocates, who are strident in their claims that women's reproductive rights are being trampled on. Calling the concept of abortion on demand as a "reproductive right" - now that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one... Has it ever occurred to anyone that "reproductive rights,” as enacted these days, tends to eliminate actual reproduction? Apparently they have in South Dakota. Read the whole story here: New York Times Story