No AP Labeling for Liberals Making Teenage Sex Easier, Without Parents Knowing

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

Here’s another dispatch where one-sided ideological labeling helps underline the liberal argument that they are merely for "science," while the conservatives are all about ideology. Associated Press reporter Larry Neumeister announced: "The Food and Drug Administration let politics cloud its judgment when it denied teenage girls over-the-counter access to the Plan B morning-after pill, a federal judge said Monday as he ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds obtain the medication."

Neumeister did not seem to consider that making high doses of contraceptive medicines available to high-school juniors is in part a social decision about child sexual activity without parental consent. The liberals in the case were not labeled. While the AP writer made room in his story for conservatives, they were labeled repeatedly:

– "The morning-after pill is a source of tension for social conservatives who held great sway in the Bush administration and who believe the pill is tantamount to abortion."

– "The FDA said it is reviewing the judge's decision. Women's groups said it's unlikely that the Obama administration would appeal. Social conservatives decried the ruling."

– "The conservative Family Research Council said the judge's decision bowed to ideological pressure from the left."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

That sentence is the only time Neumeister mentions a "left" in this ideological battle. The feminists and abortion-rights activists are presented as non-ideological believers in science first:

– "Susan Wood resigned as the top FDA official for women's health in 2005 to protest agency delays in issuing a decision on the morning-after pill. Now a professor at George Washington University's school of public health, Wood said the ruling represents a vote of confidence in the FDA's scientific staff."

– "In February 2001, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and 65 other organizations petitioned the FDA to make Plan B available over the counter to all, regardless of age."

– "The lawsuit was filed in 2005 by the Center for Reproductive Rights and others...’Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard public health,’ said Nancy Northup, president of the center."

Neumeister did not explain that the "Association of Reproductive Health Professionals" began as an educational branch of Planned Parenthood in 1963, and the groups still hold conferences together.

Or that Susan Wood is a "hero" of the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute and other lobbies of social liberalism, and went on a Bush-bashing speaking tour.

Or that the Center for Reproductive Rights is deeply committed to abortion rights without parental interference. They declare: "Protecting the reproductive rights of adolescents has always been a top priority for the Center. In addition to advocating against the passage of forced parental involvement laws, the Center has brought lawsuits that have invalidated such laws in Alaska and Montana."

Why can’t national reporters acknowledge that there are two sides to this ideological battle? It’s between conservatives and liberals, or the forces of sexual restraint vs. sexual liberation. It’s not a cartoon of Science vs. Conservatism.

For example, is it scientific or ideological to argue that expelling a fertilized embryo is not an abortion?  Neumeister suggests this is merely a "belief" of conservatives. Liberals suggest a fertilized embryo is not a pregnancy until it attaches to the uterus. (Embryos used in in vitro fertilization aren't attached, but are still fought over as human life.) Barr Labs, the maker of Plan B, is even less concerned about this biological fact: its website declares "Plan B isn't an abortion pill -- it can't terminate an existing pregnancy."

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More proof that to the

More proof that to the liberal mindset, their view is the "normal" one, and thus needs no label; there are only "normal" people and those right-wing extremists (conservatives).

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

This has ALWAYS been a difficult subject...

 As there are numerous "opinions" on various facets of this debate, and everyone thinks that they are "Right". I suppose though, it boils down to three things:

1. What is the definition of "Viable Human Life"?

2. A Woman's right to make decisions for herself concerning her own physical well-being  VS. The unborn child's right to live.

3. What is the onus of responsibility of BOTH of the prospective parents as to the consequences of their decisions and actions?

The "Day after pill" adds more ambiguity to an already complicated area. That being, if you are able to stop a pregnancy from progressing at the very early stages of conception (IE: before implantation) is that abortion?

Being a Man I suppose my view counts for little. Although I am also a father of a young daughter, so I think I get to at least voice an opinion.

Firstly, I think that Mr. Graham is right that this issue ISN'T Conservative Religious Ideology Vs. Liberal Scientific fact. (Thus making it a Religion vs Science issue) It is in fact two moral/ethical opinions with some science thrown in on BOTH sides. For instance, working as a medical practioner I would have to agree that "the Day after pill" uses that EXACT same physiological mechanism that regular oral contraceptives do -they prevent the implantation of a fertilized Human Egg.-

The difference being that regular oral contraceptives are taken BEFORE the decision to have intercourse, and (Here's the big difference IMHO) they have medical applications OTHER than contraception. (IE: Treatment of Dysmenorrhoea, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Bone mass Loss, and Endometriosis.)

The DAP is strictly an "Oops! I messed up, and I don't want to get pregnant" situation. It's NOT used to treat anything other than an unwanted pregnancy, and therefore HAS no other use than to relieve an irresponsible pair of people from the consequenses of their actions. Period.

Finally, Chris Gacek of Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Regulatory Affairs made this statement about the recent ruling, and I agree with him WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

"This ruling jeopardizes girls' health and the ability of parents to care for their daughters' physical and emotional well-being. Judge Korman has accepted lock, stock, and barrel all of the claims of a political ideology promoting sexual license for teens.

"Now some minor girls will be able to obtain this drug without any guidance from a doctor and without any parental supervision. We lack scientific studies on the long-term effects of Plan B with respect to high dosage and repeated use in both women and adolescents. Also, research from Scotland in the 1990s indicated that the increased use of the morning after pill did not decrease abortion rates.

"There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to women, especially sexually abused women and minors, under coercion or without their consent. Interaction with medical professionals is a major screening and defense mechanism for victims of sexual abuse. The availability of Plan B over-the-counter also bypasses the routine medical care of sexually active girls and women, which is important to allow screening for other health conditions, including sexually transmitted diseases."

Doc

2008: The year that the great LIE died.

How we know that they know that they are Lying.

Friedrich Nietzsche summed up how I feel about the MSM in this quote:

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."

Argument clarity

Let's remember that there are two stages to this argument. One is whether the morning-after pill constitutes an abortion. The other is whether the destruction of the embryo, before its implanted, is wrong anyway. However, in each stage of the argument, the scientific facts are clear. The embryo has basically all the material it needs before implantation. Implantation provokes changes in that material, but the material is already there. For example, twins tend to individuate on implantation. So the moral question (in messy general terms) is whether it's a human being when it has all its material, or whether it's only human after the changes that come from implantation, or other changes.

The point is that, within each stage, the scientific facts in the argument are fairly well-known. They just don't prove anything. The argument is over the relevance and meaning of those facts, not the facts themselves.

That's the danger of journalism. Journalists take it upon themselves to frame the terms of the debate, but they don't understand the debate well enough. Their ignorance and biases frame the debate, without their realizing it.

All very intersting, KC and

All very intersting, KC and doc,  but I think the point was the labeling, and lack
thereof, in the AP story. The assumption that it is only conservatives who are driven by ideology, while liberals who believe that  the personal "right to choose" at any age, are not.  Nor does the AP see their interpretation of the "science" that they tout as being influenced by their ideology.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

Yes and no

That was Tim's original point, but I wasn't trying to simply restate what he said. I was trying to take it a step further. My point is that the AP uses labels is to frame the debate; but, further, they trying to frame a debate they don't understand. The AP journalists assume that the moral issue is decided by the scientific "facts," but the journalists don't realize that in a moral argument, facts aren't everything. They're trying to frame a debate they don't understand.

I'll further argue that this is an inherent problem with journalism. The media wants to referee the public conversation on every topic, but the media doesn't understand the topics well enough to earn the right to referee them.

Sorry KC, I just didn't

Sorry KC, I just didn't want to see the thread get derailed into yet another abortion/choice/when does life begin? debate.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

Understood

But now that you mention it ... nah, just kidding.

If I thought there was any interest, I'd start a forum on the role of the media. In general. But I suspect that's too broad and too philosophical to attract anyone. Oh well.

delete

delete

Geez, it must be in the Constitution!

Can't you all read? Our forefathers obviously had the right of a minor to a pill that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

 They just felt they didn't have to spell it out for us, since its apparently so obvious.

 

The Constitution...

hasn't been followed since the beginning of the Civil War

The Yahoo home page reads as follows:

 

FDA Ordered to Reconsider Women's Access to morning after pill.

I always enjoy whether the MSM labels 17 year old females as women, teenagers, or children.  In this story, of course they are tagged as women.  If the same 17 year old was behind the wheel and killed as a result of drunk driving, she would be a teenager.  So I guess you are a woman if you kill someone else yet still a teenager if you kill yourself.

Let me also add:

In keeping with avoiding the "liberal" tag, here's astory from Politico:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20395

Notice how Ed Shultz is "progressive", not liberal.

Don't Tax Me, Bro.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.