In last week’s story about the Supreme Court hearing arguments regarding the ban on “partial-birth” abortion, we incorrectly implied that Solicitor General Paul Clement told the justices that doctors who perform so-called “intact extraction” procedures have offered “cause-specific reasons” for choosing that procedure. In fact, Clement told the court that doctors have not offered specific reasons to explain why the procedure is ever necessary. As such, Clement argued, doctors use intact extraction only out of “preference.” We regret the error.

This article appears in December 1 • 2006.

A note to readers: Bold and uncensored, The Austin Chronicle has been Austin’s independent news source for over 40 years, expressing the community’s political and environmental concerns and supporting its active cultural scene. Now more than ever, we need your support to continue supplying Austin with independent, free press. If real news is important to you, please consider making a donation of $5, $10 or whatever you can afford, to help keep our journalism on stands.

SUPPORT US