On Wednesday (4/18/07) the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by a vote of 5-4. This law bans a very gruesome form of late term abortion where, as described to the judge in National Abortion Federation vs. Ashcroft

the physician grasps the fetus's lower extremity with fingers or forceps and pulls the fetus through the cervix and vagina until its head is lodged in the cervical opening. At this point, the fetus's arms and legs have been delivered outside the uterus while the fetus is still alive. With the fetus's head lodged in the cervix, the physician punctures the skull with scissors or crushes the head with forceps.... The physician then drains the fetus's skull by suction, or by using a finger, and the skull collapses.

In one of their latest editorials on the liberal push to cirumvent the wish of Oregon's voters in regards to same sex marriages, the Fish Wrapper editors continue to push the lie that these bills would strenghen gay and lesbian families.

Most of the piece rehashes the testimony from the legislaitve hearings this past Monday on Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007. These bills would create special rights for homosexuals and also come as close as possible to creating gay marriage in spite of the passage of Measure 36 in 2004 by a large margin.

Most of the time, the Fish Wrapper's (and Associated Press') bias is pretty obvious, but sometimes it's a little more subtle. A perfect example of this subtle bias is an AP article about William Gray, one of our leading hurricane forecasters. Gray made some comments about Al Gore and his global warming hype:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

The editors of the Daily Dead Fish Wrapper are at it again on one of their favorite topics, global warming. In today's editorial, they also employ the usual tactic of twisting an event to suit their pre-determined opinion. In this case, the title "The air clears on climate change" is very misleading because it applies to a case about the regulatory powers of the EPA.

The purpose of the article is the recent Supreme Court ruling in a case where the issue was whether the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. According to the title, you would think that the ruling provided definitive scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming (and exactly when was the last time that judges were scientific experts?). Instead, it was just 12 states getting the liberal wingnuts of the Supreme Court to go along with them and try to force the administration to hamstring our economy.