My Dear Editor,
Usually Mary Tuma uses the term “anti-choice” to sanctimoniously denigrate her opponents. But in her most recent usage, she’s also simply wrong.
In May 18’s News Headlines
, she refers to gubernatorial hopeful Andrew White’s “personal anti-choice stance.” That phrase could only mean that Andrew White personally opposes a woman’s right to choose, which is not his actual position, and there is no evidence to the contrary. White’s actual position is, “It’s a personal choice that my wife and I wouldn’t make, but it is a choice that we wouldn’t take away from somebody else, either.” (Texas Tribune, May 11). That White and his wife wouldn’t choose abortion does not make them “anti-choice”! White could properly be described as “personally anti-abortion,” since he personally doesn't agree with abortion, but not “personally anti-choice,” since he personally does not oppose choice.
And yes, I know that the blurb didn’t have a writer’s name attached, but it’s painfully obvious that it was Tuma, since among Chronicle
writers she alone never misses any chance to use the “anti-choice” phrase. This includes her predecessors like Jordan Smith and Lauri Apple. Tuma’s zeal for the use of inflammatory rhetoric has now moved beyond being a distracting show of moral superiority and into the realm of careless misreporting.