Join the Conversation
Send your thoughts to Letters to the Editor. Learn more
The National Review is the kind of magazine one assumes follows basic standards of journalism. You know, get informed reporters and commentators to write about topics intelligently. Obviously I do not usually agree with their editorial stance, but neither do I expect them to indulge in the kind of paranoid fantasies we associate with, say, Glenn Beck.
But, Michael New has an analysis of the new conscience protection regulations that offers not a scintilla of evidence for his speculation that the new regulations were released at this time to coincide with the vote to defund Planned Parenthood. If Mr. New had bothered to pick up the phone, he would have learned that the new conscience regulations had been in the works for some time, that a notice they would be issued by the end of February had gone up long before the amendment to defund Planned Parenthood was offered, and that there was, in fact, no political effort on the administration's part to release the regs as any kind of a reply to the vote on Planned Parenthood.
We should expect more from a magazine like National Review. But, hey, at least he did not see the new conscience regulations as part of an effort to impose sharia law or re-establish the Caliphate!
