Tag Archives: Pro-Choice

Is the mainstream media fair in reporting on abortion violence?

This is original work from Verum Serum. They contrast the mainstream media’s reporting of the Georger Tiller killing with the killing of pro-life activist Jim Pouillon.

Excerpt:

Of course there has been real right-wing extremism, most notably the murder of abortionist George Tiller last Summer. That shouldn’t be ignored or minimized. On the other hand, there was another killing not long after which received a lot less attention. Jim Pouillon, a long time pro-life advocate, was shot three times through the pro-life sign he was holding by a stranger who was irritated by his message.

How bad is the media bias in the reporting of the two killings?

News Outlet Tiller’s murder (stories/words) Pouillon’s murder (stories/words) Ratio
LA Times At least 10 stories totaling 8,286 words. Three stories totaling 423 words. 19.5:1
NY Times At least 17 stories and three editorials totaling 21,430 words. Five full stories and one partial story totaling 3935 words. 5.4:1
Time At least 9 stories totaling 4,838 words. No mention of Jim Pouillon at all. 5,000:0
Washington Post At least 15 stories and one editorial plus 5 AP dispatches totaling 12,002 words. Three AP stories totaling 981 words. Original reporting = 0. 12.2:1

Newsweek didn’t mention the Pouillon killing at all, just like Time.

There’s a lot more to their post, and you can read the rest here. This is a very original and informative post.

I recommend that people exercise caution when buying magazines like Time and Newsweek. They’re hard left, so you aren’t getting all the news. You are just getting all the news that fits their narrative.

Why did Bart Stupak vote for the health care reform bill?

Here’s a story from the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

When Bart Stupak announced Sunday he was now a “yes” on the health-care bill, six Democrats stood with him. Even that handful would have been enough to defeat the bill. Instead, they accepted the fig leaf of an executive order—and threw away all the hard-won gains they had made.

[…]Even more troubling… is that few accept the idea that the executive order really adds anything. In fact, on this point National Right to Life, the Catholic bishops and the Susan B. Anthony List are largely on the same page as Planned Parenthood. As are the pro-life Republican leader Mr. Smith and the pro-choice Democrat Diana DeGette of Colorado.

Planned Parenthood calls it a “symbolic gesture,” and says “it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.” Rep. DeGette, who screamed so loudly when the Stupak amendment passed, said she had no problem with the executive order because “it doesn’t change anything.” She’s right, because an executive order cannot change the law.

Take the $7 billion in new federal funding for the community health centers. As my former White House colleague Yuval Levin points out, all that has to happen for these federal dollars to start flowing for abortion is for NARAL Pro-Choice America to sponsor a woman demanding an abortion. The center will initially deny funding, citing the executive order. The woman will then sue, arguing that abortion is a part of health care. Given the legal precedents, and the lack of a specific ban in the actual legislation, the courts will likely agree.

Why did Bart Stupak change his vote?

Here’s a press release from his web site. (Dated 3/19/2010)

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements.  The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.

Could this be the reason? Thirty pieces of silver?

Fox News reports that Obama skipped signing the executive order on Tuesday.

The worldwide war on baby girls

This article is from the left-wing magazine The Economist, which is pro-abortion and pro-Obama.

Excerpt:

Gendercide—to borrow the title of a 1985 book by Mary Anne Warren—is often seen as an unintended consequence of China’s one-child policy, or as a product of poverty or ignorance. But that cannot be the whole story. The surplus of bachelors—called in China guanggun, or “bare branches”— seems to have accelerated between 1990 and 2005, in ways not obviously linked to the one-child policy, which was introduced in 1979. And, as is becoming clear, the war against baby girls is not confined to China.

Parts of India have sex ratios as skewed as anything in its northern neighbour. Other East Asian countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—have peculiarly high numbers of male births. So, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have former communist countries in the Caucasus and the western Balkans. Even subsets of America’s population are following suit, though not the population as a whole.

The real cause, argues Nick Eberstadt, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC, is not any country’s particular policy but “the fateful collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility.” These are global trends. And the selective destruction of baby girls is global, too.

Boys are slightly more likely to die in infancy than girls. To compensate, more boys are born than girls so there will be equal numbers of young men and women at puberty. In all societies that record births, between 103 and 106 boys are normally born for every 100 girls. The ratio has been so stable over time that it appears to be the natural order of things.

That order has changed fundamentally in the past 25 years. In China the sex ratio for the generation born between 1985 and 1989 was 108, already just outside the natural range. For the generation born in 2000-04, it was 124 (ie, 124 boys were born in those years for every 100 girls). According to CASS the ratio today is 123 boys per 100 girls. These rates are biologically impossible without human intervention.

The national averages hide astonishing figures at the provincial level. According to an analysis of Chinese household data carried out in late 2005 and reported in the British Medical Journal, only one region, Tibet, has a sex ratio within the bounds of nature. Fourteen provinces—mostly in the east and south—have sex ratios at birth of 120 and above, and three have unprecedented levels of more than 130. As CASS says, “the gender imbalance has been growing wider year after year.”

Make no mistake. Pro-choice is anti-woman.