Why was this column in the Toronto Star even published?

I don't get it. This article by Emma Teitel in the Star is based on the now proven to be false statement that Andrew Scheer referred to a same-sex marriage bill as “abhorrent.” In fact at the very top of the article the Star published a correction to the article whose entire premise begins with a false allegation.

"Correction – June 1, 2017: This column mistakenly states that Andrew Scheer referred to same-sex marriage bill as“abhorrent.” In fact, Scheer’s statement referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry being called before a Human Rights Tribunal for speaking out about the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In his speech, Scheer said: “To think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable. It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community. It is abhorrent because the very essence of being a religious official is to teach the faith and instruct the faithful. There is an inherent right for religious officials to do so.”

So why did the Star publish the article at all? Is it because it's just too much fun to trash social conservatives?

Now I don't usually read the Star but Michael Coren--now a good friend of the Star--tweeted it. Coren thought it was a "very good column".

Can a column be very good when it's based on a falsehood? What am I missing here?

The pro-abortions and their heart of lead

Emma Healey in the Toronto Star:

"It’s deeply disturbing to look across the border and see how cavalierly the health and safety of American women are being tossed aside. The debate currently raging in the U.S. around reproductive health care just serves to reaffirm a sad truth: that for many people, the health and safety of women simply do not matter. To the Republican politicians who have made defunding Planned Parenthood a priority, it seems women’s lives and bodies are mere tools for inciting easy political and moral outrage."

The "health and safety of American women are being tossed aside"? What about the health and safety of the children they're carrying? What about the children being killed in their mother's womb for the sake of "reproductive choice"?

The pro-abortions are pathetic. As Carly Fiorina says: “Oh, please! Oh, please.”

And oh. It's also "excellent news" that we can now use the "gold standard" of killing pre-born children with pills. How awesome is that?

"In light of all this, it’s easy to look at the state of reproductive health in Canada and feel a comparative sense of pride. Just recently, it was announced that RU-486, or Mifegymiso, a drug widely considered the “gold standard” of medical abortions, will be available as early as January 2016. This is excellent news; the drug could play an enormous part in making abortion accessible and safe, especially for women who live in communities where access to clinics and abortion services is either difficult to obtain or (as is the case in Prince Edward Island) completely nonexistent."

Do these people ever listen to themselves? Do they have a heart at all or is it made of lead?

These people are so blinded by their "reproductive choice" pro-death agenda that they have no idea that other tiny defenseless human beings are being sacrificed at their altar of abortion. They're blinded, or more probably, they just don't care.

Where are you Toronto Star and Globe and Mail cat got your tongue?

Claire Hoy wrote a great piece in the National Affairs: It’s all politics, pure and simple about Ontario's hiding of all abortion statistics.

He wonders why we haven't heard from the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star on this story that one would think would have all the news media crawling all over it.

The National Post has covered this story here and here, but nary a word from the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star.

You know what I mean G&M and TS don't you? A really good news story, I'm sure you've heard of them. It's a story that people care about, that's topical, that has neat stuff in it like issues, like you know, like democracy and secrecy and intrigue and accountability (or lack thereof)? Stuff like that.

As Hoy points out:
"And speaking of newspaper coverage, as far as I can tell, both the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, both editorially very proabortion, haven’t even bothered to report this story – odd, given the reams of coverage they gave last year when Stephen Harper announced an end to the long-form census. They treated this cutback on statistics as a national tragedy. But abortion statistics, hey, who cares? All of which goes to show that politicians have no monopoly on hypocrisy".

Indeed.