Topic: WorldNetDaily
Wonder what Clinton-harrassing lawyer Larry Klayman has been up to lately? After leaving Judicial Watch (where his conservative buddies ignored him after he started filing lawsuits against Republicans) and getting stomped in an election for a Senate seat in Florida, Klayman has now signed on with another law firm and making more dubious claims.
A Dec. 30 WorldNetDaily article reports that Klayman is representing a Florida family who blames the death of their 9-year-old son on the state's Department of Children and Families because the agency tried to force the family to seek treatment for the boy's bone cancer over the family's objections. The family claims that the boy's cancer was too advanced at the time it was discovered and that chemotherapy and radiation would not help their son.
The strange thing about this article is that it's the most balanced original piece WND has published in months. While writer Ron Strom devotes most of the article to statements by the boy's parents and Klayman (typical Klayman statemen: "DCF thought they knew better. ... They caused the death of a young child and caused a tremendous amount of emotional distress") and includes only token comments from DCF officials, Strom's telling of the circumstances surrounding the boy's death casts doubt over whether Klayman has a case. He writes that the boy died en route to a hospital after the DCF allegedly demanded that the boy be evaluated following complaints that the parents were denying the boy pain medication based on their religious beliefs, but offers no evidence that the boy would have survived had he not been moved.
The question is obvious: How did WND let an article that tells both sides of the story slip through a system that typically permits only the most biased pieces to see the light of day?
Posted by Terry K.
at 12:27 PM EST
