Journalists often the define the news as a "man bites dog" story. In that case, what about when an abortionist kills the woman seeking an abortion? Our "pro-choice" media is allergic to occasions when this occurs. (Remember Holly Patterson? Most don't. Some older examples are in here.) Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reports on the latest example from Massachusetts, and the extremely slow media reaction:
The mainstream media has finally reported on the case of a Massachusetts woman who died from a legal abortion there. LifeNews.com first brought the case to light when pro-life groups told the news service about 22-year-old Laura Hope Smith, who died after visiting the Women Health Center, an abortion business.
Laura Smith was the Honduran-born daughter whom Eileen and Tom Smith adopted at the age of five.
Eileen Smith told the National Catholic Register last week that she is upset that no mainstream media outlet had covered her daughter's death up to that point.
"I don’t want Laura’s death swept under the rug," she told the Register. "If Laura had died falling off a bike or in a car accident, it would have been in the paper the next day. [Abortion] is a political hot potato."
According to Smith, a reporter from the local Cape Cod Times approached her two days after her daughter died for an interview. However, the article never ran in the newspaper.
Finally, five weeks after her death, the Times ran a story Sunday on Smith's death under the headline, "Parents search for clues in daughter's unexplained death."
The Times interviewed Karen Trott, a local resident who was a friend of Smith and went with her to the abortion center.
Trott said Smith was initially worked up and told to come back later in the day for the actual abortion and said Smith was 13 weeks pregnant at the time.
She waited for the abortion procedure to be completed so she could drive her friend home. But that never happened as the botched abortion apparently caused Smith significant medical problems.
"And then all of a sudden (an assistant) comes out and says she's not breathing," Trott said. "And I was like, what do you mean she's not breathing?"
After paramedics rushed Smith to a Cape Cod Hospital, Trott called Eileen and Tom Smith to let them know about their daughter's condition.
Meanwhile, Smith's attorney filed a Complaint for Discovery on October 4, for information from the Medical Examiner's office, the hospital, the abortion facility and abortion practitioner Rapin Osathanondh.
Osathanondh, who received his medical training in Thailand, did the abortion on September 13.
Next week, Smith is expected to file for administrative control over Laura's estate so she can have access to her daughter's medical records, the Times reported.
Wouldn't it be nice if a national reporter asked Hillary Clinton about how abortion isn't always "safe, legal and rare" for women in America?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The MSM, as willing
October 23, 2007 - 06:18 ET by motherbeltThe MSM, as willing accomplices of the abortion industry, protect them again. Abortion advocates don't want women to have the best information on abortion (regarding increased risk of breast cancer, the possible after- effects of depression, etc.). Nor do they want them to have up-to-date information on fetal development. They are afraid that might make a woman feel "guilty" about having the abortion, or, heaven forbid, change her mind about going through with it.
It stands to reason that their willing accomplices in the MSM would squelch bad outcomes for the "client", because that might make other women "worry", and possibly choose not to undergo the "procedure."
Even when they do get it right, they go back to their lies
October 23, 2007 - 09:27 ET by GrannyGrump42I don't know if any of you remember the brouhaha when the first Partial Birth Abortion Ban was in the works. The MSM were parroting "talking points" from Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the National Abortion Federation, etc. But a couple of brave souls decided to check the discrepancy between what the prolifers were saying and what the prochoicers were saying.
They found out, of course, that the prolifers had it right and that the prochoicers were -- in the words of a then-repentant Ron Fitzsimmons, head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- "lying through [their] teeth".
There was a brief smattering of, "Well. That's interesting." And the MSM coverage went right back to "It's ever so rare, only done in the most dire of circumstances, yada yada yada."
More here:
http://realchoice.0c...
(I wanted to link to the original American Medical News article but it now requires a subscription to read it. :( )
Another big issue that
October 23, 2007 - 07:12 ET by Senior ChiefAnother big issue that Republican president-wanna-bes need to capitalize. The very reason, and other social issues- why conservatives are shying away from Guiliani and co. Guiliani will not win the nomination and the White House if he sticks with his pro-abortion (choice), pro-gay marriage, anti gun, etc. We need a real conservative in the ticket.
The democracks just lost two possible votes in Smith and the baby, therefore the leftoid media will not run such news, so as not to scare other democrack-leaning electorates.
To the democrack presidential wannabees, especially trial lawyer Edwards...Would you take on Smith's case, and prosecute the abortionist, the clinic, the hospital, the ME's office? Come on Senator, would you be this time, for small constituents, the downtrodden, the poor and the victims, and chase the big corporations and the establishments? Show us your true color!
B.J. Clinton
October 23, 2007 - 08:27 ET by mattmReiterated the phony NOW-gang mantra of keeping abortion "safe, legal and rare."
Just like everything else connected with the Clintons and the Left, that is pure Bovine Feces.
They don't give a crap about it being safe or rare. They want 11 year olds to be sexually active, why? To increase the number of abortions and feed their coffers. They couldn't care less if few of them die.
Abortion is the least regulated of all the "medical" procedures. A parent has to sign off for a kid to get his tonsils out, but parents don't even have to be notified at all if their kid is going in for an abortion.
This is SOCIALISM, folks.
Christina Dunigan
October 23, 2007 - 09:20 ET by GrannyGrump42Whistling past the graveyard if you ask me.
I read the article in the Cape Cod Times about Laura Smith's death, and they said that the Centers for Disease Control had counted nine abortion related deaths in 2005 -- evidently the most recent year they've bothered counting. I keep track of these things as best I can (I blog abortion deaths.), and I only knew of two for sure. I did a search but the most recent Abortion Surveillance Summary I found was for 2003, and it only tallied deaths through 2002. So I looked at the ten year period ending in 2003, and noted that there are at least 48 abortion related deaths in those years that I didn't know about. That's in addition to the 38 that I already did know about.
If they get coverage at all, they're just local stories.
But could you imagine what would happen if a woman went to a prolife pregnancy center and died in childbirth? The coverage would be nonstop and relentless.
You can learn a bit more here:
http://realchoice.bl...
I have all the abortion deaths I know of, legal and illegal, here:
http://realchoice.0c...
Scroll down and look at the ones since 2000. Do you remember any MSM coverage of any of them?
What a shame
October 23, 2007 - 11:16 ET by greenfairieIt's ironic that a girl who had been given the chance to live and be adopted didn't want to do the same for her own child. And now her parents have lost her.
It's also ironic how the abortion industry bills itself as safe and pro-woman. Yeah, right.
Medical Risk
October 23, 2007 - 12:04 ET byLike all other surgery, there is a risk with abortions. This woman obviously signed a form understanding this risk (as is the case with all medical operations), and unfortunately, there were complications and she died. This happens with every form of surgery, every day in america. It is obviously very sad that this happened, but don't make abortions out to be this extremely unsafe procedure.
I don't recall reading about all the people who died from kidney, liver, heart, lung, or cosmetic surgery either. Maybe we should ban those too!
It happens people!!
Your point is invalid.
October 23, 2007 - 13:25 ET by golfingtitanYeah but the difference between abortion and those other medical procedures is that abortion doesn't HAVE to be done to save a life. Matter of fact, it's sole purpose is to kill a baby.
The two are no where near comparable, so your point is mute.
As a side note... Dr. James Dobson shared a story on his radio the other day and he said he was in Congress (I believe) for a debate on abortion, and he said that the speaker opened up the debate to the floor for comments from those in attendance.As soon as he finished his sentence opening the floor, a lone baby started crying. Its echoing cries were the only sound in the entire building.
People need to wake up and realize that abortion is murder. And it's murder in the name of greed and selfishness. And yes.... that's EVERY case EVERY time. Rape, medical reasons... whatever... you're killing a helpless baby who had nothing to do with the thing that is causing it to be killed.
And if you don't think they feel anything... ask the abortion doctor who went into perform an abortion, but when the knife touched the baby, it jumped away, and then grabbed his finger. They are living, helpless, human beings. They're not a "fetus"... they're a baby. It's not a "procedure", it's murder.
You have to be heartless... and I mean absolutely heartless to either perform the murder, or have the murder done. Especially when there are people waiting for years to adopt... it makes no sense to kill the child. No sense whatsoever.
Carry the baby for 9 months, give birth to it, and then help someone else out there fulfill their lives by giving them your child if you're not ready to have your life fullfilled by a baby yet.
You're almost right
October 23, 2007 - 14:05 ET byHowever you missed my last example.............................cosmetic surgery!!!
why aren't you launching a crusade against that? probably because it's a billion dollar industry, making a lot of people extremely wealthy.
For some reason I don't think increasing your bust size is necessary to save a life. And people die all the time from cosmetic surgery (oh and please don't bring up burn victims as a reason for cosmetic surgery.....I'm obviously not talking about that)
Busted!
One more thing
October 23, 2007 - 14:14 ET bylet me get this straight, you're saying 'there are people waiting for years to adopt?'
Are you serious? They're definitely not waiting for the black child who came from a low-educated family. Why don't you go to your nearest foster home and ask the teenager who has been in an out of the system all his life if people are lining up to take him home.
Now I am on the fence about abortion (I have argued for and against), but to ask a woman to give birth to the child of the man that raped her is nuts!
We have a huge problem in our society with poor families having large numbers of children and not being able to care for them. These kids enter a life with no good options and many end up in prison (hurting other people in the process).
Now i would be all for no abortion, however somehow i feel our society is not up for footing the bill to pay for the cost of caring for all these kids. You know, raising taxes! You can't have it both ways.
fushone - You assume a lot in your post
October 23, 2007 - 16:33 ET by sdb1. You assume that the "black child who came from a low-educated family" and "the teenager who has been in an out of the system" were given up for adoption at birth. This simply may not be the case. Many are there because of parental abandonment (either the parents left or the kids were taken away by the state due to abuse or neglect). I don't know if this is true, but I would like to see some numbers.
2. You assume that asking "a woman to give birth to the child of the man that raped her is nuts!" Actually, in the only major study done on the subject, 75% of rape victims who became pregnant carried the baby to term. All of them said that giving birth helped them to heal from the rape trauma they experienced. Of the 25% that aborted, almost all of them said they regretted it, saying the procedure actually increased their trauma as if they were being raped again. This precludes other emotional side-effects caused by abortion such as depression. (I will find that article and edit this post with the link.)
3. You assume that it is society's responsibility to care for kids born that would otherwise be aborted. How about making the parents responsible? This is purely subjective, but from my experience and that of many others, becoming responsible for the well-being of your child is an excellent motivator for bettering yourself.
4. Let's take the assumption that society would be responsible for taking care of these kids. You assume that raising taxes is the only way to do that. This is simply not true. Decreasing government entitlement benefits have actually helped those dependent on them become self-sufficient, thereby making them more responsible and better able to care for their own children. Also, decreasing personal income tax leaves more money for individuals to give to charities such as orphanages. And private businesses, charities included, have proven to be much more efficient with money given than the federal government with money taken.
Disclaimer - I am on this site often, but very rarely have the chance to post, so I will most likely not be able to participate in any further discussion. I wish this wasn't the case, but I say it so no one feels slighted when I don't respond. PM is always available for those that would like to have more discussion, but I can't make any promises there either.
EDIT:
That link mentioned in #2 is here.
"pro-choice"
October 23, 2007 - 14:22 ET by ts88I want everyone to know that I am "pro-choice" if the mommy wants to kill her baby then here is the choice, Kill the mommy and save the baby "pro-choice"
That's a grand idea
October 23, 2007 - 15:17 ET bySounds good as long as you're going to volunteer to care for the baby.
Sounds good
October 23, 2007 - 16:26 ET by ts88Well then the good mommy should not have had unprotected sex then should she?? 1.5 mil dead babies a year, that's not from rape now is it.