In today's Spokesman-Review there's an article about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifting an injuction effected by a District Court Judge in the Western District of Washington. What's interesting is how it differs from the original. The original article, written by Carol Williams for the Los Angeles Times, is entitled "Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says".
But the Review decided to entitle the article "Pharmacists lose abortion pill ruling"
There is only one mention of abortion in the article and that had to do with the pharmacists' argument for not stocking and providing Plan B.
"...the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion."
Any clear-headed person--even an editor--who can read should know that Plan B, unlike RU-486, is not an abortifacient. Just because you regard or believe it is doesn't make it so. By referring to Plan B as an abortion pill, the Review not only contributes to confusion, ignorance and the polarization of the subject, they implicitly takes sides in the matter.
Fan those flames, baby!
I also found the characterizations of the judges by Carol Williams to be inapplicable.
The three judges found common ground despite broadly differing outlooks: two conservatives named by President George W. Bush and a liberal named to the court by President Bill Clinton made up the panel."
I think you'll find the opinion (PDF) measured and objective. One would be well advised to read it before placing any importance on the presumed political leanings of the judges.
In The Meantime . . .
16 hours ago