Zealots on the NYT editorial board

Ed Lasky
A New York Times editorial attacks "male justices" of the SCOTUS and expresses unseemly rage.

"Gutted" a host of "thoughtful" lower court rulings; "severely eroded" the constitutional respect and protection afforded to women; "eviscerate the crucial requirement... that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman's health"; "atrocious" result"; "these five male justices felt free to override the weight of the medical evidence..."

If only the New York Times would show similar zeal in defending America and opposing Islamic extremism. That would be to defend all of us: men, women, and children.

A New York Times editorial attacks "male justices" of the SCOTUS and expresses unseemly rage.

"Gutted" a host of "thoughtful" lower court rulings; "severely eroded" the constitutional respect and protection afforded to women; "eviscerate the crucial requirement... that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman's health"; "atrocious" result"; "these five male justices felt free to override the weight of the medical evidence..."

If only the New York Times would show similar zeal in defending America and opposing Islamic extremism. That would be to defend all of us: men, women, and children.