Pro-Life Bias in the Mainstream Media?
— Posted by John (November 6, 2006 at 12:45 pm)
That’s what the pro-abortion blog RH Reality Check would have us believe.
In response to the media coverage of the two partial-birth abortion related cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court this Wednesday, their home page currently issues this call to action:
Ask Mainstream Media to Stop “Talking Right” on Women’s Healthcare Options!
It links to a petition that reads:
We, the Undersigned, endorse the following petition:
The “pro-life” lobby has successfully manipulated Congress and the Courts. Now, legislation and court cases around the country are threatening to overturn the right to choose, a very private health decision for women.
What’s more disturbing is the fact that the mainstream media, who supposedly provide us with “fair and balanced” perspectives, have actually adopted the very language that far right strategists invented for talking about women’s medical procedures.
The term “partial-birth abortion” is “not medical terminology” according to the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and many other leading legal and medical associations. Yet, the media continues to use this phrase and others as legitimate medical terms, making right-wing rhetoric seem like factual language in the minds of voters.
Next week, the United States Supreme Court will hear two important cases – both of which have been called out by all major American medical associations for using political rhetoric rather than medical language to describe abortion.
Reproductive Health Reality Check is asking mainstream media to refrain from using extremist rhetoric in their reporting of these cases and others. Join them in calling on news executives to ensure that journalists stop “talking right” about a woman’s right to choose. [Emphasis in the original.]
[As an aside: Reading this reminded me of the time when a few friends and I attended an event sponsored by the Loyola Socialists. (Yes, there actually was, within the past decade, a Socialist chapter at my Catholic alma mater. Considering what happened there last month, you probably won't find that hard to believe. For the record, however, as far as I know, the Socialist chapter there is now disbanded.)
At this abortion-rights themed event, the general sentiment among the group was that the "right to choose" was about to be overturned any day now, and that then-President Clinton (this was in 1998, as I recall) wasn't pro-choice at all. One fellow in attendance referred to Clinton as "anti-choice," while several others nodded in agreement.]
I don’t know what’s more strange: the laughable fact that pro-aborts are accusing the mainstream media of a pro-life bias (apparently it’s overlooked that when the term “partial-birth abortion” is used in the MSM, it never appears on its own; rather, it’s used in a context such as, “so-called partial-birth abortion”), or the fact that they can’t bear that the MSM does not use the technical name to describe the procedure: i. e., intact dilation & extraction. (Ironically, the words “intact dilation & extraction” appear nowhere in the petition.)
For obvious reasons, ordinary people don’t usually use precise scientific terminology in everyday conversation. Hence, the common practice of describing something “in layman’s terms”.
That’s why the term “partial-birth abortion” is such an apt description of intact dilation & extraction. The doctor who literally wrote the book on abortion, John Willke, describes intact dilation & extraction as follows:
This is like a breech delivery. The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out. The drawings illustrate this.
“Partial-birth abortion” = “right-wing rhetoric”?
Decide for yourself.
This entry is filed under Abortion, Law & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
mary kay says:
This from a group that used to refer to abortion as “having a procedure” done…
Quite honestly, I think dilation and extraction is even more inhumane and graphic sounding than partial birth…
I can tell you that if I sat at the dinner table and discussed partial birth abortion, my 17 year old son would not even blink and eye. But if I started discussing “dilating” my cervix and then “extracting” a dead baby…well, he’d get up and leave…We all know how men react to anything descriptive pertaining to “WOMEN’S ISSUES” Can’t you just hear them all going “ooooooo,…gross!)
So go ahead, call it dilation and extraction. And then when people ask you what that is, tell them…
MK
Comment posted November 6th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Christina says:
The Left pitches a hissy fit any time anybody doesn’t entirely toe their line. How *dare* the MSM refer to a law by the law’s name!
Comment posted November 6th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
lauren says:
For the record there are a lot of moderate pro-choice people like myself that don’t believe in third trimester abortion and this procedure in particular.
Comment posted November 6th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Rosie says:
Has anyone seen this?
http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/photography/photo-gurus-do-you-think-doctored-25408.html
Comment posted November 7th, 2006 at 12:25 am
mary kay says:
Rosie,
Even if the photo was faked, the message is still loud and clear…and true. Awesome!
MK
Comment posted November 7th, 2006 at 6:40 am
John says:
Lauren said: “For the record there are a lot of moderate pro-choice people like myself that don’t believe in third trimester abortion and this procedure in particular.”
You’re right: Among self-styled pro-choicers, those who want to maintain the status quo in the U. S. — keeping abortion legal throughout all three trimesters — are a distinct minority.
I’m curious, Lauren: As you’re well aware, I’m sure, we who believe abortion not be legal under any circumstances, or at any point in pregnancy, are often labeled “extremists”.
Would you think it is justified to label those who, on the other hand, believe abortion should be legal at any point in pregnancy as “extremists”?
Comment posted November 7th, 2006 at 10:45 am
lauren says:
Would you think it is justified to label those who, on the other hand, believe abortion should be legal at any point in pregnancy as “extremists”?
It depends. I think there are legalistic reasons that many say they want to keep abortion legal in all three trimesters. if you concede on some parts, you risk giving legally the other parts away. If there were away to give away some parts of legal abortion and maintain what the majority in America believes should be legal, I would be for it.
People who believe that abortion should be legal in all three trimesters without regard to reason why other than “freedom”, are in fact as you say, extremists.
Comment posted November 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Mike says:
For the record there are a lot of moderate pro-choice people like myself that don’t believe in third trimester abortion and this procedure in particular.
Lauren,
Why not? Why do you not believe in abortion after 180 days or 6 months (entering the third trimester)?
What happens to the baby in the mothers womb on day 181 for you all of the sudden not to believe in abortion on this particular day going forward?
Mike
Comment posted November 8th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Lauren says:
Because of viability and feeling of pain. I believe that baby has potential to survive outside of its mother womb.
Comment posted November 11th, 2006 at 11:28 am
mary kay says:
And what happen in 25 years when babies can survive outside of a womb on the day they are concieved? Granted they will need help, but with the advances we are making it is possible.
I think someone has said this before. The difference between babies that are allowed to live and those that die are the subjective view of the mothers. A baby at 6 weeks in utero that is wanted is revered. A baby at 6 weeks in utero that is not wanted is garbage. The baby has not changed. That is objective. The only thing that changes is the point of view of the woman carrying the child. That is subjective.
Can we truly rationalize abortion using subjective criteria?
Can a human life truly be weighed by whether it is wanted or not? I would hate to think I was being judged by that criteria.
MK
Comment posted November 11th, 2006 at 2:24 pm