Oh My....

Well, this is awkward:

Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who broke the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar that launched a global crusade against Ireland’s pro-life laws, has admitted that the story of Mrs. Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a little bit “muddled” in the retelling, and there may have been no such request after all. 

In an interview this weekend on Newstalk 106, Holland appeared flustered and defensive, deflecting blame for the uproar onto Mrs. Halappanavar’s husband, Praveen. When radio interviewer Marc Coleman of Newstalk 106, asked her, “You’re satisfied that he did request a termination?” Holland responded, “Oh, I’m not satisfied of anything.” 

 “I’m satisfied of what he told me,” she said, “but I await as much as anyone else the inquiry and the findings. I can’t tell for certain. Who knows what will come out in that inquiry? They may come back and say she came in with a disease she caught from something outside the hospital before she even arrived in, and there was no request for termination.” 

Covering, Holland added, “One may even wonder are requests for terminations recorded at all in Irish maternity hospitals.”

Asked about discrepancies in the reports on the timeline of Mrs. Halappanavar’s care – particularly when, exactly, she started receiving antibiotics after her admittance to hospital – Holland replied, “All one can surmise is that his recollection of events is…the actual timeline… may be a little muddled.” She said that “at one point” Mr. Halappanavar told her that she was only given painkillers, and never received any antibiotics.

Holland later told the state broadcaster RTE that her coverage in the Irish Times “never suggested” that an abortion might have saved Mrs. Halappanavar’s life.

Coleman also queried Holland about discrepancies in her Times report compared to her later reporting in the Observer. After her initial article in the Irish Times on November 14th, Holland three days later wrote in the Observer the disclaimer, “The fact that Savita had been refused a termination was a factor in her death has yet to be established”. 

Coleman asked her why that sentence was included in the Observer but not in her original article for the Times. Holland responded, stammering, “Well, I suppose throughout the original article …umm… I mean it was quoting the concerns of the husband, Praveen. And, at no point … I mean … there was … you know it was hinted at in the headline, which obviously I didn’t write. You know, ‘refused a termination’ was in quotes. Umm, but you know I was reporting the concerns of the husband, and what he said he was concerned about and what he said happened in the hospital. 

“Whereas my piece in the Observer was a more kind of background piece from my point of view, so it was obviously important for me to say quite explicitly that, you know, it has not been established that a lack of access to a termination…”

Coleman also mentioned to Holland that there are a lot of concerns about the “contrast” between the November 14th report and her later reporting. “It did travel around the world very quickly, the assumption that this woman had died precisely because of a lack of termination,” he said. 

“Well, I mean, what I wrote were the concerns of the husband,” she responded, “and I suppose what readers took … decided to infer from that is … what the concerns were of the husband and what he stated happened from his recollection of events in the hospital.” 

(Sidebar: when all else fails, blame someone else, in this case, the husband.)

I must say I’m stunned, shocked even, to my very core that a journalist would lie and that a pro-abortion group would use that lie until their throats were hoarse from shouting. 

Kitty Holland is covering her butt. How convenient that certain facts were simply not there in the original article but appeared elsewhere. Did they just become pertinent in retrospect? When were the antibiotics administered to Mrs. Savita Halappanavar – Sunday, Monday or Tuesday, as Miss Holland reported? But then you can just say the husband gave the wrong facts that one ran with instead of confirming with, let’s say, one of the medical staff. And then there’s the all-important request for a “termination” that the husband just doesn’t recollect properly. There were no quotes in her Observer article which is rife with all manner of unfair speculation and certainly suggests that a “termination” could have resolved anything at all. The radio interview is just as telling. The reporting on the incident fueled pro-abortion sentiment in Ireland with the sadly deceased and conveniently foreign Savita Halappanavar as the face of it.

Savita Halappanavar wasn’t a pawn; she was a slogan and after this, she won’t even be that anymore.

And to think that it could open the floodgates.