title:  The Daily Caller Edits Woman’s Tragic Pregnancy Story In The SICKEST, Most TWISTED Way Imaginable
text: The Daily Caller is disgusting. Any media outlet that isn t disgusting wouldn t have been so cold, callous and cruel to a woman who publicly shared her difficult and tragic story of having to terminate her pregnancy after 20 weeks. The New York Times was kind enough to publish Meredith Isaakson s story in an op-ed, but what reporter Rachel Stoltzfoos and The Daily Caller did to it is beyond reprehensible.What did they do? In their own words: We Edited A New York Times Op-Ed On Abortion So It Reads Correctly. Edited so it reads correctly,  does not describe the evil they just published. Isaakson found out her son wasn t likely to survive until birth, let alone after birth, because of a fatal defect in the development of his heart   half of it was missing. It was an abnormality that wasn t detectable until about 20 weeks gestation, even though his heart had stopped developing correctly at five weeks. She then says: In the days that followed, after the poking and prodding, after the meetings with pediatric cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons and geneticists, my husband and I decided to terminate our pregnancy. I was 22 weeks pregnant when they wheeled me into the operating room, two weeks shy of viability in the state of California. Here s how The Daily Caller edited that paragraph: In the days that followed, after the poking and prodding, after the meetings with pediatric cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons and geneticists, my husband and I decided to terminate our pregnancy [direct an abortionist to rip him limb from limb out of my womb in order to end his life]. I was 22 weeks pregnant when they wheeled me into the operating room, two weeks shy of viability in the state of California [the point when the state of California determined he is a human with the right to live].  [emphasis in original]How does anybody do this to a woman who wanted her baby, but learned that his chances for survival were extremely slim, and was left with a choice no parent should ever have to face? How vile can you be? How black is the heart of someone who can so completely disregard what Isaakson was going through this way?But it gets worse. Isaakson goes on to say: For us, the decision was about compassion for our unborn baby, who would face overwhelming and horribly painful obstacles. Compassion for our 2-year-old son, who would contend with hours upon hours in a hospital, missing out on invaluable time spent with his parents, and the death of a very real sibling. It was about compassion for our marriage. Perhaps most important, it was about our belief that parenthood sometimes means we sacrifice our own dreams so our children don t have to suffer. Here s how The Daily Caller tore her to shreds for that paragraph: For us, the decision was about compassion for our unborn baby, who would face overwhelming and horribly painful obstacles [if we failed to suction him out of my womb with complete disregard for the pain he may already be capable of feeling]. Compassion for our 2-year-old son, who would contend with hours upon hours in a hospital, missing out on invaluable time spent with his parents, and the death of a very real sibling [killing of his brother commissioned by his mom and dad]. It [Killing our son] was about compassion for our marriage. Perhaps most important, it [killing our son] was about our belief that parenthood sometimes means we sacrifice our own dreams [kill our baby boy] so our [other] children don t have to suffer.  [emphasis in original]The entire thing just gets worse, and worse. The Daily Caller has proven themselves to be pro-birth, but not pro-life, and shown that they don t give a flying rat s ass about the pain the original news caused Isaakson and her family, to say nothing of the pain of this decision.If this is how the pro-birth crowd sees this, then they re bereft of compassion, and they re bereft of love and they are bereft of empathy. Their hearts are the darkest of abysses. Sure, they say they re speaking for those who can t speak for themselves, but they do so at the horrific expense of those making the decision. There is no regard for Isaakson, and what she went through, in this perversion of her op-ed.This is probably the coldest, most heartless, most sickening thing a media outlet can do to someone. We sincerely hope that Rachel Stoltzfoos and everyone who was involved in publishing this never face such a terrible, gut-wrenching decision themselves, because nobody should ever have to go through this. Period. She and The Daily Caller owe Isaakson and every other woman who s had to make this awful decision a heartfelt apology, though, at the bare minimum.To read Isaakson s story, click here. To read The Daily Caller s so-called  edit,  click here, but be careful. There are no words bad enough to describe this.Image of The Daily Caller logo by Marquis de Faux, Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. Flame image by Littlevisuals.co, Public Doman via Pexels