I read something, or I hear something, particularly on a polarizing issue, even from someone with whom I generally agree, and wonder, really? you're not exaggerating a bit? or okay, maybe so, but what's the context? That sort of thing.
I have trouble, from time to time, because when he says something on certain contentious topics I tend to ask Himself, how do you know? and he always hears, implicit in my question, I don't trust you, when I mean, I might not trust your sources.
Because, you know, Those Interwebs.
Anyway, Lifesite, a very strong advocate of the right to life, (as well as of other issues, some of which are only peripherally connected to their main goal,) naturally takes a very adversarial position regarding the chief purveyor of private murder of the unborn in this country.
And, like most advocacy journalists, they may not reveal all the shades in an issue on which they report.
An example would be claims that so-and-so "supports" thus-and-such, when in reality he has just declined to criminalize it, (e.g., I am not in favor of drunkenness if I don't think all drunks should be thrown in the hoosegow.)
Anyway, forgive me for my scepticism when I read something like, Planned Parenthood says a law requiring those who are HIV to inform their sexual partners of the fact somehow violates their civil rights.
But no, that's exactly, and expressly what PP said:
Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.Just to be clear, this is a publication of Planned Parenthood International and dates from 2010, but it is still being offered as a resource.
Just plain evil.