FNC's Powers: Media See Planned Parenthood as 'Humanitarian' Group That 'No One Can Ever Criticize or Question'
On Saturday's Fox News Watch, during a discussion of the media double standard between hitting Komen for planning to defund Planned Parenthood, while delaying attention to Catholic leaders criticizing the Obama contraception mandate, liberal FNC analyst Kirsten Powers debated fellow panel member and FNC analyst Judy Miller from the right as Powers noted the media's bias toward Planned Parenthood, while Miller defended President Obama. (Video below)
In a statement that would have been worthy of a right-leaning analyst, Powers exposed the media:
We're talking about how the media reacted to it, and I think he's [Jim Pinkerton is] right. They are united in believing, A, they're pro-choice. They are united in believing that Planned Parenthood is a humanitarian organization that no one can ever criticize or question. I mean, they are completely united in that. And they don't question these things, like they don't question, they saw it as a contraception issue. It's a religious freedom issue.
After Miller injected, "It is both. Why can't it be both?" Powers continued:
It's not. Because they're not equal. There's no, there's nothing in the Constitution about access to contraception. You know, it's, to equate these two things is just to ignore our entire history.
Below is video of the relevant portion of the Saturday, February 11, Fox News Watch on FNC:
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
i have a new theory about
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 9:47am.
i have a new theory about abortion where the left has a foundational belief in doing what feels good - whereas the right is more about sacrifice - and abortion allows a women to continue to enjoy life baby-free without the sacrifice of motherhood - and the feel-good generation that is the current MSM just exists in this paradigm so completely that their currrent tack just seems like the obvious correct view of life...
it's probably already the common theory anyway but it just seemed new to my thinking anyway. i suppose this theory might apply to gay 'rights,' social legislation, and all of the other controversial issues of the day
oh well it works for me i guess. any way i hope i've annoyed a liberal at the very least:)
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
No, you're right
Submitted by falcon on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 9:53am.
And it's not really a new theory, but one I've noticed since I first got into the news business in 1981. Many on the left (not the string-pullers, naturally) are all about "feelings." For instance, if something "feels" right, do it. Never mind whether it actually *is* right or not. How you feel about something is all that matters.
This is why our court system is in such a mess, because liberal judges don't actually adjudicate a case based on the facts and the law, but how they "feel" about it. (See the 9th District Court for a prime example.) This is why the media gets all stirred up about conservative values, because it leaves little room for "feeling" (meaning they don't get to do what they want when they want, with no consequences).
Abortion is just a way for women to have sex without having to suffer the so-called "consequences." I believe in life, but I also believe that people should use their heads instead of their genitals, and realize that there are consequences, good and bad, for every action they take. That would reduce the number of abortions (and out-of-wedlock births) just by itself, if people would be smart.
But the left doesn't want smart people.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
~Amendment
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:22am.
Abortion is just a way for women to have sex without having to suffer the so-called "consequences."
Abortion is just a way for men to have sex without consequences. Before abortion was legal, men had to marry the woman, or face the stigma of having seduced a woman and then abandoning her and his child. Now, they can just shrug and say, "Get an abortion. It's legal. If you keep the baby, it's your choice, not mine, and that's on you." Abortion is a Get Out of Responsibility Free card for men as well as women. They just don't have to also face direct participation in a murder, like women do.
yeah in fact i had a woman
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:36am.
yeah in fact i had a woman tell me once that abotion makes a woman equal to a man terms of casual sex - and that's why she supports it
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
~"Equal to a man in terms of casual sex"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:30am.
is a feminist canard, because there is no such thing as 'equality' of the sexes. Men are still the ones who propose...or don't propose. All abortion did was prevent a whoooooole lotta pregnant women from getting married and having a family. Fewer and fewer women are getting married, because men can get what they want without having to go to that much effort.
Abortion destroys the family by destroying the whole reason for marriage, the nurturing of the young.
Why buy the cow Bru
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:42am.
Why buy the cow, Bru, when you can get the milk free?
As you can see, my sayings are older than I. Besides why waste time and money raising and supporting a family?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Abortion destroys way more than the family.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:48am.
The old, fuddy-duddy Catholic Church knew that decades ago, and now it's
Time To Admit It.
~The destruction of the family
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:59am.
equals the destruction of society.
Destruction of Society
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 12:30pm.
What is happening with all of this single motherhood (wherein no father is EVER around)....what we are getting is a self-perpetuating group of feral children. When left to their own devices, they are never going to join the society as a whole. Just as in impoverished countries (I'm thinking Nicaragua, specifically) where there are packs of feral kids making livings at the dump or selling themselves, the United States of America has fostered the same outcome by funding single motherhood in and of itself (rather than as a temporary safety net).
The more I consider this notion, the sadder I get. So I'll stop now.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Even closer to home
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 12:40pm.
in a sense, look at the feral youth riots in England last year.
Here's a thorough breakdown of their composition, for anyone who's interested..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15426720
And to flip the coin again
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:07am.
with the legal choice of the woman, even if the man wants the baby and is willing to support it, he has no say in the destruction.
~GMTA
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:23am.
As seen here..
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/02/07/even-chris-matthe...
I disagree, Brunette
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:53am.
Men wish it were the way you describe. But actually, If the woman gets pregnant and decides to deliver the child, the courts will hold the man responsible for paying child support. The mother can always opt not to accept it, but the man does not have the liberty to walk away from responsiblities to support that child to its adulthood.
Feminists saw legalization of contraception and abortion as essential to liberating women in the so-called sexual revolution. Women could enjoy sex without worrying about the consequences of pregnancy. If they did get pregnant, they could abort.
Preventing or terminating pregancy was critical for ascension in the work force. For those who opted to have families, day care (preferably free or at least cheap) was also critical.
It has been the goal of the feminists and their Democratic allies to frame fertility and abortion as women's health issues in order to get taxpayers to pay for it.
~"Men wish it were the way you describe"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 12:10pm.
Wow, that's quite the harsh indictment of men.
Divorced men pay child support, the fathers of illegitimate children have to be tracked down and paternity verified in order to even begin the process for child support. The fact is, no man who is indifferent to whether his child lives or dies is going to eagerly grab his wallet and offer to pay for it's upbringing.
So, a woman who doesn't want to murder the illegitimate child of the man who used her for sex and tossed her away is forced to go through a protracted legal process, the very existence of which is a humiliation, in order to extract a grudging pittance from the man who thought she was good enough to screw but not good enough to keep.
Feminism is a cloak for the destruction of society, and it's targets are the weakest among us, women and children. Men, by exploiting the poor fools and absenting themselves from real relationships, are useful idiots complicit in that destruction.
Incorrect
Submitted by chiefpayne on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:49pm.
Sorry Wrathful Brunette,
You say "abortion is just a way for men to have sex without consequences. Before abortion was legal, men had to marry the woman, or face the stigma of having seduced a woman and then abandoning her and his child. Now, they can just shrug and say, "Get an abortion. It's legal. If you keep the baby, it's your choice, not mine, and that's on you." Abortion is a Get Out of Responsibility Free card for men as well as women."
You see the woman is the only one who can make the DECISION to get an abortion...or didn't you hear that a man has NO say in whether a woman can have an abortion or not. As a matter of fact, the man has to sit by and let the woman make the decision without any say so at all.
And the men, if the woman DOES decide to have the baby, is NOT off the hook. He has to pay child support whether she chooses to marry him or not.
So you see, it's HARD to point the finger at the man when he has NO say in if the woman gets an abortion or not. He can suggest such...but he can't make her do anything. More he has to live with the consequences of a decision he has NO input on.
~I was paraphrasing the post I was responding to
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:59pm.
Which said that abortion is just a way for 'women' to have sex without consequences. I was pointing out that men were being left out of the equation in that statement, and that as the gender which actively seeks out sex to a much greater degree than women do, men 'benefit' more from consequence-free sex. Ultimately, the victims in this situation are the women and children, as they are much more likely to face poverty, abuse, and for the children, jail time, than they are if the man takes responsibility for his sexual behavior by marrying the woman he engages in it with.
As for your comments about men and their lack of rights when it comes to their child being aborted, if you'd followed the link I placed above as well as here..
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/02/07/even-chris-matthe...
..you'd see I've already covered that.
right - and hypothetically
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 2:03pm.
right - and hypothetically what would the baby choose if it could - the only party worthy of 'choice' is the woman - although the woman has to carry the baby - and go through 9 months of significant mental and physical stress - i guess that's why they say a man has less or no part in the decision - no uterus then no say in the decision
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
~I've got a solution!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 2:08pm.
Men could just not have sex with a woman who would abort a baby, and women could just not have sex with a man who wouldn't be willing to marry her and raise children! Voilà!
For my next trick, I will solve world hunger. Stay tuned.
Of course the left doesn't want smart
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:25am.
If everyone was smart, they wouldn't get any votes.
If it feels good
Submitted by FaulknerFan on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:31am.
Right on Falcon. Remember the old mantra from the sixties? "If it feels good do it!" To me even back then it was only a license for irresponsibility and it remains so today. Only today, the practitioners are the democrat party, the media and all the political left who hold most of the power in the country. They somehow stole it from the rest of us in the last fifty or so years. The saddest thing and probably the reason they have been so successful is that just as water flows downhill, people naturally go toward the least restrictive rules for living and this hedonist philosophy has taken over as the primary philosophy of our country. The inevitable disastrous consequences loom just around the bend. We're like a wild party on a houseboat floating a mile above Niagara Falls oblivious to our fate. When the majority of the people were truly Christian and adhered to the moral restrictiveness of the church we were a wonderful country, the most amazing in the history of civilization. Today, with the pervasive influence of the godless left, not much, and we probably deserve what we're about to get.
⇒ Truth
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:13am.
The left is also more intent upon sacrifice than the right.
About 1,000 human sacrifices occur each day in Planned Parenthood Houses of Molech.
Compared to the Church of Molech, Christians are just weekend warriors.
yeah the intent is probably
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:26am.
yeah the intent is probably the way to deal with the subconscious guilt - it must be an empty feeling though - man do we know the liberal mind or what
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
is Powers a Catholic?
Submitted by spepper on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 9:51am.
Is Powers a Catholic? That would explain her clarity on the issue-- because it certainly IS a religious-freedom First Amendment issue-- which the Obama Adm. has CLEARLY violated. Their little "compromise" is NOTHING OF THE SORT-- it is ONLY an unfunded mandate to private-sector insurance companies to "foot the bill" when it comes to claims received exclusively from Catholic health providers for women seeking "contraceptive services" (a euphemism for ABORTION). That is ultimately the issue here, whether "contraceptive services" should include abortion at all.
I believe she is a lapsed Episcopalian.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:47am.
And now is a self-described Atheist.
According to several bios of her that I accessed, she has a keen interest in Egyptian Coptic Christians as she is married to one. I wish she would be more vocal on the brutality that Coptic Christians are suffering at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
⇒ She's back on message now
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:44am.
Kirsten Powers just opined a few minutes ago that the President's latest offering reduces the issue to nothing more than the Republicans' reticence to being forced by the government to buy a product.
I think she's right. I think we've slept since then, Bishop Dolan's off to have himself draped in red, and this issue can't possibly be more important than Whitney Houston.
Well, Kirsten is wrong.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 12:53pm.
This is not an Obysmal-Republican thing. It's not about access to "women's health care". It's all about the Constitution, she knows it, she's just going with the WH talking points for Monday. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with Obysmal trying another end run around that pesky Constitution.
And if he gets away with it
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 2:03pm.
Which I predict that he will because Congress is "Searching for a legislative option" whatever the F that means when it comes to Bonehead because we sure as hell can't count on him doing the right thing, what else will DuhOne do an end run around that pesky Constitution on next?
Because you know he will do something. He's already had the FDA declare an Amish farm family not to sell his milk across state lines even though he's done it for years. Reason? FDA claims it can't guarantee the safety of the milk. Hm, kinda like the TSA can't guarantee our safety if they aren't around to grope the balls and boobs.
-Jon
all the Nazi's felt they were
Submitted by jkwtrading on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:43pm.
all the Nazi's felt they were doing good too... they were on their own pedestal..
Sins of the father are visited on the sons
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 4:28pm.
How come the sins of the founding fathers, especially racial animus and slavery, are often used to impugn the original documents and the foundation of this country. Thomas Jefferson was great, yeah, but, well, he was a white man with land and slaves, yadda yadda yadda. They wrote a constitution that was okay, I guess, but look, they counted Negroes as 3/5 of whites, so how good could it be?
Etc. The sins of the founding fathers are used to denigrate [can I say that?] the accomplishments of the sons and to cast doubt on the high moral purpose of our modern institutions of government.
But daughters are exempt from the taint of the sins of their mothers.
I am referring specifically to the racist purposes of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and advocate of eugenics to control the number of less desirable classes (and you could tell who they were just by looking). Planning parenthood, i.e., birth control, means fewer darkies, imbeciles, and—who else?—gypsies and Irish immigrants? If you bring that up to PP supporters, they dance a jig [can I say that?] and say that she wasn't really espousing that eugenics stuff and besides that was 80, 90 years ago and doesn't have any bearing on today, etc.
Logic for thee but not for me.