The Washington Post where bullshit pays

If there was ever an ironic statement admitting gigantic douchebaggery it is Michael Gerson's piece today on Ruth Bader Ginsburg's interview with the New York Times.

Q: "Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid abortions for poor women?"

Justice Ginsburg: "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."

A statement like this should not be taken out of context. The context surrounding this passage is a simplistic, pro-choice rant.

A statement like this should not be taken out of context?!!!<

Which Gerson does BY TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!

Here is the portion that Ol' Page-Boy Cut lops off right at end of what he cut and pasted:

So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Saying something needs context AND THEN LOPPING OFF THE CONTEXT because it doesn't give you what you need is intellectual fraud of the first order. It should be a firing offense.

But not at the Washington Post, he'll get a raise.