Blind spot on abortion

Media selectively ignore gender-selection termination outrage

  • Follow Editorials

There is no liberal bias in the news, according to – ahem! – Dan Rather.

Oh well. Consider the source.

Then again, if he’s right, then there has to be some other explanation for the media’s glaring blindspots. Solar flares maybe?

The major networks have largely ignored a growing revolution among religious institutions against the Obama administration’s requirement that they provide birth control and “morning-after” abortion pill coverage to employees – even if it violently violates their religious beliefs.

More recently, the media mostly looked the other way when it became clear that “gender-selective” abortions were going on in America – and even pretended not to notice when the U.S. House took a vote on the matter.

That has to be a conscious decision, don’t you think? Abortion is a flashpoint issue in America – and these were two big flare-ups the media seemed to have no interest in.

Oh, and weren’t the media all atwitter a few months ago about some supposed “war on women” because birth control isn’t available or affordable enough (neither of which is true)? Why the sudden disinterest in what may amount to real violence against females?

Whatever happened to the feminists on the left? Wouldn’t it interest them at all that an undercover video recently showed a Planned Parenthood worker helping a woman plan an abortion – but only if the fetus turned out to be female?

Or does the left’s absolute allegiance to abortion anytime for any reason trump the life of little girls, even in the face of gender-selective abortion?

Planned Parenthood itself must have been appalled by its employee helping arrange a gender-selective abortion on the video; she was fired within days.

Amazingly, though, you’re not seeing much about this in the “mainstream” media, are you?

In addition, the U.S. House of Representatives voted last week on a bill to outlaw gender-specific abortions. The bill, which required a two-thirds majority, failed. But all it would’ve done was to extend current non-discrimination laws to the unborn – by prohibiting a doctor from performing an abortion “knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent.”

You’d think a congressional vote on abortion – particularly one to save girls – would be big news. Yet, one media watchdog reports that the House vote was not featured in either that evening’s newscasts or the next morning’s “news” shows on the three major broadcast networks.

How does that happen? How do all the major news broadcast operations miss the same big story? Osmosis?

Well, ABC did mention it – at 3 a.m. – but dismissively called the House vote “a bit of election-year political theater.”

Really? Banning the killing of fetuses because they’re girls is nothing more than “theater”?

Oh, that’s right. It was conservatives who wanted to ban it.

Must be solar flares. Can’t be bias!

Comments (60) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/08/12 - 07:13 am
7
3
That's the thing about

That's the thing about choice, it's the woman's, not the provider, or the government that should step in. It's ludicrous to think that the AC would accept any measure of choice, so they gin up the narrative about sex-selective abortions. Why doesn't the media cover it? Lila Rose (founder of Live Action, that did the video) had a habit of palling around with James O'Keefe- , 27, lives with his parents, criminal and on probation, can't set foot in New Hampshire due to pending arrest, violationed probation so he'll probably be re-arrested, maker of fake "sting" videos, and re-editing tape to totally falsify the end result, so anything she might put out has been tainted from the start. When you lie with the dogs, you get fleas. Lila Rose is covered with them.

justthefacts
22198
Points
justthefacts 06/08/12 - 07:23 am
7
5
Attack the messenger

Never fails......

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/08/12 - 07:30 am
8
4
When the messenger is a known

When the messenger is a known liar, you bet.

Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 06/08/12 - 07:33 am
7
5
Are we surprised?

Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood for the specific purpose of killing "imbeciles." That's what she called minorities.

Are we surprised that an organization founded on such extreme racism would discriminate against gender as well?

I challenge you to watch MAAFA 21 to learn the history of Planned Parenthood.

justthefacts
22198
Points
justthefacts 06/08/12 - 07:35 am
7
5
Wondering

OK Techfan, but did you have thoughts on the Congressional vote? So you are perfectly OK with killing the baby if it is the wrong sex or color? That's a choice?

effete elitist liberal
3139
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/08/12 - 07:41 am
3
6
Blind spot?

And here's what you didn't see mentioned in this predictable ACES piece:
the House vote on this proposed legislation was pure right-wing theater.
ACES mentioned that a 2/3s majority would have been needed to pass right-wing Arizona congressman Trent Frank's proposal, but not why. The reason is that Republicans chose to use the House's "fast-track" process instead of the usual simple majority track process. Frank and House Republicans knew they did not have the 2/3s necessary and the bill would fail, but they didn't really care. They just needed to get a vote in time to use the names of Democrats and so-called "RINOS" in this summer's political ads. Frank himself admitted it, saying after the "failed" vote, "After today, people who vote will at least be on record."
Talk about hypocrisy! Today's ACES piece makes them complicit in the charade, but what do you expect?

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/08/12 - 07:45 am
6
2
The GOP doesn't give a darn,

The GOP doesn't give a darn, they just keep throwing anti-choice bills at the wall and see how many can stick. Love the thought police part though, where any healthcare worker has to report any "suspected behavior" or be charged with a crime.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/08/12 - 07:52 am
5
3
Glad you liked the film

Glad you liked the film insider. I'm also a fan of fiction.

justthefacts
22198
Points
justthefacts 06/08/12 - 07:54 am
5
3
Perfection

The artfull dodge.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/08/12 - 07:55 am
4
4
Sounds like a jobs bill to

Sounds like a jobs bill to me.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/08/12 - 07:57 am
8
2
I'm for womens' choice. I

I'm for womens' choice. I don't like abortion at all, for any reason, but I'm not the one who should make the call. Neither are you, and neither is Congress.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 06/08/12 - 07:59 am
7
3
Oh, and neither is the

Oh, and neither is the editorial staff of The Augusta Chronicle.

allhans
23773
Points
allhans 06/08/12 - 08:08 am
5
3
The amendment to the abortion

The amendment to the abortion that the House attempted to pass states no abortion based on race or gender or some other things....Why would anybody object?
Sounds like a necessity in today's climate when anything goes (almost, anyhow).

Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 06/08/12 - 08:02 am
5
4
No cure for dumb

Margaret Sanger creates Planned Parenthood to eliminate black people. People ignore her.

Videos show Planned Parenthood selectively killing girls. People ignore them.

Planned Parenthood workers talk about how to run underage prostitution rings and it's caught on video. People ignore them.

The left is Pro Choice. Their choice is to remain dumb. Unfortunately, nothing in Obamacare will cure dumb.

justthefacts
22198
Points
justthefacts 06/08/12 - 08:06 am
6
1
We'll see

Hitler thought he could eliminate people he didn't care for as well. The rest of the world disagreed.

Willow Bailey
20603
Points
Willow Bailey 06/08/12 - 08:25 am
5
3
JTF, you'll never get a

JTF, you'll never get a response when you make a Hitler reference. It just hits to close to home to be faced. You know, pretend it isn't true and so it's not.

InChristLove
22480
Points
InChristLove 06/08/12 - 08:26 am
4
3
"I'm for womens' choice. I

"I'm for womens' choice. I don't like abortion at all, for any reason, but I'm not the one who should make the call. Neither are you, and neither is Congress."

"Oh, and neither is the editorial staff of The Augusta Chronicle."

I don't like abortion either, but in my view, the woman made HER choice when she had unprotected sex with the possiblity of knowing she might conceive a child.

justthefacts
22198
Points
justthefacts 06/08/12 - 08:35 am
6
0
Actually

I really don't like the Hitler comparision. It's really not the same thing. I shouldn't have used it. But, we really hit a slippery slope when we turn our backs and allow people to select who lives and who dies based on race, religion, or sex. IMO, that crosses a fine line.

effete elitist liberal
3139
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/08/12 - 08:44 am
3
3
object?

allhans: The vote, 246-168 for the amendment, shows it would have passed easily under normal House voting rules. But the amendment was "fast-tracked," meaning it could pass only with a 2/3s vote. If House right-wingers had really been interested in getting this amendment passed, they could have, but going the "normal" route would have taken a little longer and Republican right wingers would have not have the "no" voters to pillory in political ads this summer and early fall. The point is Republicans were obviously more interested in having political talking points than in protecting the unborn. I repeat: pure hypocritical theater and the usual political hypocrisy.

justthefacts
22198
Points
justthefacts 06/08/12 - 08:48 am
5
1
Voters should know

Nothing wrong with making sure voters know where their representitives stand on critical issues. Better than finding out after the election.

Willow Bailey
20603
Points
Willow Bailey 06/08/12 - 08:53 am
6
3
Houston, we have contact.....

@ICL..."I don't like abortion either, but in my view, the woman made HER choice when she had unprotected sex with the possiblity of knowing she might conceive a child."

Exactly!

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/08/12 - 10:01 am
5
2
I'm for women's choice too.

I'm for women's choice too. Why not give the young female in the womb the choice whether to live or die, rather than deny her that most basic of inalienable rights, "the right to life"?

Why is it that those who scream the loudest for the right of a woman to "chose" are also those who scream the loudest in demanding the "right" to take life from another -- and in so doing deny her the very right they demand for themselves?

Bizkit
32156
Points
Bizkit 06/08/12 - 09:14 am
5
1
Rose, O'Keefe, NBC, MSNBC are

Rose, O'Keefe, NBC, MSNBC are all liars and should be denounced and discredited. Glad to see the Rep use the Dem strategy of bringing up sucker bills for political purposes-like the student loan debacle which the Dems are using for the youth vote, and the birth control issue for the female vote. Politics as usual.

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 06/08/12 - 09:15 am
4
1
'Who' will make a stand for the aborted?

So, techfan, Who will make a stand for the aborted babies of this world?? While you don't agree with abortion, what are you doing or saying to save a life? Down in that common sense place of your brain, you know abortion is wrong, but...........................................

Bizkit
32156
Points
Bizkit 06/08/12 - 09:31 am
3
2
Since it takes two to

Since it takes two to procreate, and for "fairness" and "equality" it shouldn't just be the woman's choice but the man should a say too-as in in vitro cases. There will always be inequality if women alone are allowed to control reproduction. If a man doesn't have a say then ban marriage and man having any financial responsibility for any child. Basically should be illegal because of gender discrimination against males. The SCOTUS upheld the woman's right of privacy in Roe vs Wade didn't mention anything about abortion per se." Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy." So a woman has a right to privacy and the state has a right to control abortion-abortions aren't a carte blanche right of women.

nofanofobama
6856
Points
nofanofobama 06/08/12 - 09:23 am
2
2
ist- both parties try to

ist- both parties try to score points..2nd- on such a crucial pieces of law i would think everyone vote ought to count..not simple majority..find out who's who on the issue..too much cover is given politicians of both stripes on important votes ...look at our current prez voting record in the senate and in IL....PRESENT IS HARDLY A STANCE....

harley_52
23636
Points
harley_52 06/08/12 - 09:42 am
2
2
We Kinda Discussed....

...this issue yesterday, though not the "gender selection" aspect per se. According to burninater and Stercus accidit,* these aren't really unborn children at all, they're some sort of non-human blob variously referred to as a "fetus," a "zygote," a " embryo," a "houseplant," "yogurt," a "sesame seed," a "tiny seahorse," or even a "blastocyst" (whatever that is). Although burninater labels the process beginning with conception and ending with birth the "human development cycle," he refuses to admit what we're talking about is indeed a "human." Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Anyway, I submit the reason they don't want to talk about the "gender selection" aspects of the current "controversy" is that they've already caught hell for being pro-abortion in the first place. They're afraid it might affect them at the polls in November because they know normal people will object vehemently to the practice of killing little unborn girls maybe even more than killing little unborn children in general.

Actually, their agenda has (once again) placed them between a rock and a hard place. They can't admit the unborn little girl is a human life because to do so would mean all unborn little children are also human lives and to admit that would blow their whole argument. So they're stuck.....they have to act like it's all "a bit of election-year political theater” and try to move the discussion elsewhere.

"Move along folks, there's nothing here to see. It's just a sweet innocent mother purging her body of a piece of garbage so she can fit into that cute black dress for her date Saturday night."

* - Note to Sean....if you translate the name Stercus accidit from Latin to English please don't blame me for choosing the poster's name. It's the way the left works. They know they can't say their actual name (or actual agenda, for that matter) so they try to hide it by disguising it as something normal people will think is "cool."

Bizkit
32156
Points
Bizkit 06/08/12 - 10:03 am
2
0
Human development or

Human development or Developmental biology encompasses all aspects of life (conception till death), embryology is just the start and one aspect. Development proceeds after birth and you aren't a mature, fully reproductive animal till puberty. The blastocyst is a legal human being, at least in regard to in vitro fertility. It is definitely a human being-by 8 weeks all the major organs are formed and most just growth occurs afterwards. At birth, you still would just be q blob by some posters because many of your organs haven't fully developed yet. It is definitely a human being aborted but physicians should still have the right to perform an abortion and the state the right to regulate it-the third trimester rule. So most states recognize the infant as a legal human during the third trimester before birth.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/08/12 - 10:52 am
2
0
Review

Harley is correct. This topic was heavily discussed yesterday (6/7) on the Opinion page site.

What was so revealing was that Stercus (Sean, please see the translation of this name) preached on and on about how it was completely immoral to harm another "living being". Yet, Stercus also confessed to being an adamant supporter of the "choice" to terminate a pregnancy. When confronted with the undeniable reality that the unborn child is indeed a "living being", Stercus had no defense and stood condemned by her very own words.

As is typical for the Left, Stercus quickly backpedaled and sought to redefine her terminology. It was rather comical, as she again got caught in her own web of hypocrisy: "Well, the unborn is not really a living being. It is only 'potential' life. It's only a blob of cells. You are not really alive until you are born." Anyone with even elementary knowledge of biology and plain common sense knows better.

Again, how sad it is to watch those who demand the right to live their own lives and make their own choices very quickly deny that very same right to another living being.

Stercus said that harming a living being was immoral. I could not agree more. I just wish folks like Stercus would follow their own ideals and stop trying to twist words to somehow justify the fact that they really believe their personal convenience is more important than the life of another living being. Stercus confessed that doing so is immoral. I totally agree.

harley_52
23636
Points
harley_52 06/08/12 - 10:56 am
2
0
Please clarify...

"The vote, 246-168 for the amendment, shows it would have passed easily under normal House voting rules. But the amendment was "fast-tracked," meaning it could pass only with a 2/3s vote......The point is Republicans were obviously more interested in having political talking points than in protecting the unborn. I repeat: pure hypocritical theater and the usual political hypocrisy."

So it's the Republicans' fault, eh? Let's examine your assessment. First, how did the votes line up before the vote? Here's one view from Yahoo news....."Opponents of the legislation, including the White House, Democratic lawmakers, abortion rights groups and some Asian-American organizations, say it could lead to racial profiling of Asian-Americans and subject doctors to criminal charges if they do not report sex-selection abortions to law enforcement. Even if it passes the House, it has little chance of seeing action in the Democratic-controlled Senate."

http://news.yahoo.com/house-vote-sex-selection-abortion-ban-053147655.html

So democrats, including the White House opposed protecting little unborn girls. Sounds like a Republican plot, alright

And how did they vote? .Are you suggesting those 168 Nay votes were all Republicans? According to my source, of the 168 Nay votes, 161 of them came from democrats. That's 96% of the Nay votes.
http://www.favstocks.com/house-democrats-vote-to-support-gender-based-ab...

The entire outcome depended on democrat support and it simply wasn't there. Not from the White House, not from the House of Representatives, and (according to the source) not from the Senate.

Gee....it sounds like those wascally wepublicans blew it again.

LOL Abject baloney.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs