:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Monday, March 10, 2003 ::

I don't like the way the media is reporting the recent legislation efforts regarding the Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban. I've blogged about media bias, and it's understood that the majority of the media supports abortion, but it still never ceases to really gripe me when I'm faced with the wildly biased news reports. It really burns me up. The first one I read (on AOL) this morning steamed me, but I wasn't going to blog about it. The second article, on MSNBC.com, was more of the same, and now I'm frustrated enough to comment.

The lead-in on the second news blurb says "Abortion foes are poised to pass a ban on PBA." The article is entitled "Chipping Away At Roe" and the term "PBA" is described as a "politically potent catchphrase". This piece, like the first one I read, seems to be less about PBA and more about anti-abortion advocates inventing a name for what abortionists describe as a "D&X".

No one knows what a D&X is any more than they know what RU486 is, but mention "PBA" or "the abortion pill" and that's something people can visualize and recall. Abortion advocates know this, and that is why they have invented the term "abortion pill" to describe RU486. They call it the "abortion pill" because it's is a pill that aborts a baby. To my knowledge, no one in the media has criticized the abortion movement for coming up with the layman's term. But flip the coin; describe an abortion in which a baby is partially born as a "partial birth abortion" and you're going to be criticized for making things up with the sole purpose of antagonizing everyone with your politically inflammatory propaganda. It seems that inventing accurate, though technically unrecognized, terminology is A-OK as long as you are using the terms to support and sell abortion. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Debra Rosenberg, author of the second offensive article, says there were "only" 2,200 children destroyed in the PBA method in the year 2000 and suggests that abortion opponents are lying (or "having credibility problems") when they claim that the procedure has been used for frivolous reasons up until the final weeks of pregnancy. She doesn't tell the reader about the abortionist who uses PBA up until the 40th week of pregnancy and admits to performing 9 PBAs due to fetal cleft lip ("hairlip"). Instead she notes that "41 states have laws restricting later abortions to cases where the woman's health or life is at stake". She doesn't mention that a "health" exception can be: "I'm breaking up with my boyfriend and having his baby would cause me emotional pain at this point." She makes the point that "[PBA] is often used on healthy women with healthy fetuses from 18-24 weeks."

Rosenberg was particularly biased when she talked about the Ohio Right To Life lobbyist who moved lawmakers to tears with a description of the PBA procedure. Instead of exploring the reason some lawmakers were reduced to tears by a description of a certain type of abortion, she focuses on the lobbyist. Rosenberg insists, "She knew she had a 'hot issue'." (Time and again it is clear that the focus of the abortion advocate isn't on women, children and families or humanity at all; instead the focus is on one-upping the opponent and winning the argument.)

Later Rosenberg admits that the issue was "hot" enough that "even abortion supporters signed on." Yet let me remind you of the article's lead in: "Abortion foes are poised to pass a ban on partial-birth abortion." To you and I the bias is obvious and tiresome. To a different (and vast) population it's yet another accepted vilification of those pesky "pro-lifers" who just want to inflame everything and refuse to mind their own [expletive] business! The life advocate doesn't like to acknowledge how unbelievably effective the media has been in its anti-anti-abortion campaign, but their endeavors have been devastating.

By exploiting a few serious nutbags, they've effectively painted those who oppose abortion as a bunch of raving lunatics whose thoughts, ideas and informative efforts are not to be entertained. Making those who are anti-abortion "off limits" helps to ensure that the reality of abortion will not be exposed. Before the facts unfold they nip truth in the bud. In addition to reducing the population, "pro-choice" media bias limits positive options for women and therefore actually chips away at a woman's choice.


:: ashli 6:28 PM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?