Somewhere between 7 p.m. on June 14 and 7 p.m. on June 15, vandals spray painted graffiti, as seen on the top right photo, on the home of Dubuque, Iowa pro-lifer Allen Troupe.
They were most likely incited by a sign in one of the windows of Troupe's home, as seen on the bottom right photo.
Click both photos to enlarge.
Troupe filed a police report and anticipated the same level of fair and balanced media coverage one would expect were pro-life graffiti to appear on the home of an abortion proponent - i.e., lots.
But not only did the local paper, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, fail to post a story, it failed to even mention the police report in its daily police blotter. Editorial staff either considered the incident too slight or too unhelpful to their pro-abortion bias.
So Troupe emailed DTH editor Brian Cooper. Following was Cooper's response....
"[Carly Fiorina's] position on taxation would deprive women of childcare."
The Hyde Amendment "penalizes poor women terribly."
"You can't be a feminist who says other women can't" have an abortion.
These are just some of the outrageous statements left-wing feminist Gloria Steinem made during an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric on the latest installment of "@katiecouric," which was posted to the CBSNews.com Web site on June 23.
Couric's responses to the "godmother of the modern women's movement's" absurd claims ranged from silent agreement to reflexive endorsement.
Although the former Playboy Bunny railed against the legislation that banned federal funding of abortion, Couric responded approvingly – "right!" – and changed the subject to the hockey mom every liberal feminist loves to hate:
On Monday's Campbell Brown program, CNN's Soledad O'Brien presented a one-sided report about a lesbian teenager in Mississippi whose senior portrait was left out of her school's yearbook because she chose to have it taken in a tux, defying the school's rules. O'Brien commiserated with the teen, asking her at one point, "I want people to understand because other people will say- oh, for God's sake, it's just a picture. So explain to us, what does it feel like to not be where you're supposed to be?"
Anchor John Roberts introduced the special correspondent's near the end of the 8 pm Eastern hour by trying to make a tenuous connection between the report and the continuing major news of the Gulf oil leak: "All eyes are on Gulfport, Mississippi this morning as the President arrived for the first leg of his three-state tour, but about 150 miles north of the Gulf, in a small town called Wesson, the big news this season was all about the high school yearbook. It was here that a teenager's senior picture triggered an unexpected backlash, and sparked outrage throughout the state."
O'Brien sympathized with Ceara Sturgis, the teen from Wesson, Mississippi, from the start of her report: "For 18-year-old senior Ceara Sturgis, her high school yearbook is more than a collection of memories. It's about her struggle to be who she is in tiny Wesson, Mississippi, population about 2,000." After asking the lesbian to describe herself ("18 years old and I'm gay. I don't like people to push me around, especially when I have the right, and I don't give up."), the correspondent continued that "what she didn't give up on was her fight to get this picture in her yearbook, a picture she took wearing a tuxedo instead of the traditional dress, called a drape."
CNN anchor Dr. Sanjay Gupta refreshingly made an implicitly pro-life argument during a report about how toxic chemicals possibly affect the unborn children: "Here in the womb, enveloped in darkness and warmth, a baby's life begins in earnest. It is a sacred space: pristine, insulated, more than nine months of safe refuge from the world outside" [audio available here].
Dr. Gupta made that statement as he gave a voice-over for the first segment of his "Toxic Childhood" special, which first aired on Thursday evening at 8 pm Eastern. CGI of a baby in the womb played as he described the "sacred space." The anchor continued on this note in his first question to Dr. Frederica Perera of Columbia University: "We imagine a baby sort of nice and safe and tucked away in the womb, impervious to all the assaults that occur on the body. You say, not so fast?" So Gupta twice referred to the unborn human as a "baby."
Larry King interviewed pop singing sensation Lady Gaga on June 1, and she appeared conflicted over the presence of children in wombs. Near the beginning of the interview came this exchange...
King: At what age growing up, Gaga, did you know that you wanted to be a performer?
Gaga: In the womb, Larry, in my mother's warm womb.
King: [Laughing] At your birth.
Gaga: Yes, at my birth. I guess that you could say it's been my destiny to be a performer....
Getting technical, because that's what we pro-lifers do, Gaga did not originally say her personality, talents, and drive magically appeared "at birth," as King translated. She said they were present prenatally. See exchange beginning at 2:34 on this clip (WARNING: PG-13, visually)...
Newsweek's Lisa Miller again lashed out against the Catholic Church in her column on Thursday, defending an excommunicated Catholic nun in Arizona for her "compassionate and impossible decision" in supporting a hospital patient's abortion. Miller also condemned a Vatican cardinal's investigation into American nuns as a whole as "authoritarian meddling."
The religion editor for the dwindling magazine began her column, "Female Troubles," by sympathizing with Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, who ruled with her hospital's ethics committee that a first-trimester abortion which took place in late 2009 was medically necessary:
Earlier this month, in something of a surprise, a nun at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix was excommunicated for approving a first-trimester abortion last year at that hospital to save the life of a critically ill patient....The irony here is thick: it has taken years, sometimes decades, to bring sex-abusing priests to justice, but this observant sister, Margaret McBride, was excommunicated in a matter of months for making a compassionate and impossible decision for one of her parishioners.
While the headline of this post is shocking, it will come as no surprise to those of us who know how strongly Obama supports abortion - to the point of infanticide.
Apparently China's reprehensible one-child policy - with its forced abortion, forced sterilization, female feticide, and female infanticide - comes nowhere close to AZ's human rights violations of attempting to enforce federal illegal immigration laws.
The United States and China reported no major breakthroughs Friday after only their 2nd round of talks about human rights since 2002.
The Obama administration wants to push Beijing to treat its citizens better, but it also needs Chinese support on Iranian and North Korean nuclear standoffs, climate change and other difficult issues...
Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state... said... officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.
He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in AZ that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally....
While the 10-paragraph article in itself didn't raise any bias alarm bells, I was disappointed but hardly surprised that the Post buried the story on the last page of its A-section.
Gardner's article focused on how Palin, "[s]peaking to a breakfast gathering of the Susan B. Anthony List in downtown Washington on Friday" observed that liberal pro-choice feminists are hypocrites for on the one hand insisting that women can hold fulfilling careers while being mothers but at the same time those same feminists hold out abortion for young women who might feel their unwanted pregnancies are an inconvenience obstacle to career or educational goals.
That observation led Post staffer Jonathan Capehart, no Palin acolyte he, to concede Palin makes a "very interesting point":
In an interview with Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith lamented President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: "Liberals feel let down because she would be filling a seat left by John Paul Stevens, they don't feel like she's enough – has enough gravitas to fill his shoes."
In his first question to Biden, Smith fretted: "Some people have said she's a person so careful as to leave no footprint. Do you really know what you're getting? Do the American people know what they're getting?" Smith went on to question Kagan's qualifications: "she's never been a public defender, she's never been a prosecutor, she's never been a judge. Most of her career has been in Washington or in an ivy or ivory tower."
In an interview with Republican Senator Jeff Sessions immediately following the Biden interview, co-host Maggie Rodriguez went so far as to wonder if Kagan would have a conservative influence on the court: "When she worked for the Clinton administration, Ms. Kagan asked the President to support a ban on all abortions of viable fetuses except when the mother's health was at risk. And some analysts have used that example to show that she may actually shift the court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens. How do you respond to that?"
On May 3 an Oklahoma judge delayed enactment of a new law mandating that mothers get ultrasounds before abortions for 45 days.
Oklahoma's ultrasound law goes farther than others. According to the Associated Press:
The law requires doctors to use a vaginal probe, which provides a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound, and to describe the fetus in detail, including its dimensions, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity.
That is just not true, obviously skewed to bias readers away from supporting the law.
On ABC’s The View on Tuesday, as the group discussed a new law in Oklahoma that requires an ultrasound of an unborn baby be performed and the image offered to a pregnant woman before an abortion could take place, none of the panel members spoke up in favor of the Oklahoma law, although right-leaning Elisabeth Hasselbeck supported "nudging" pregnant women to look at an ultrasound to be informed about the life signs of their unborn babies.
Whoopi Goldberg became emotional as she dismissed the effectiveness of viewing an ultrasound in encouraging women not to have abortions, but also seemed to worry that making such images available would make a woman more upset as she decides whether to have an abortion. She went on to express concern that if some women facing difficult circumstances chose not to have an abortion, that the baby would be murdered later in life at the hands of its desperate parents. Goldberg: "Let me tell you something. There's not a woman that goes, there's not a woman out there who makes a decision to have an abortion lightly. It is a tough, a tough, but to have someone compound what you are already carrying, you are already going in there with that pain because maybe you didn't want to have an abortion, maybe you can't have a baby. Maybe you can't afford it."
After Hasselbeck posed, "Are you going in there with all the knowledge of what's actually going on inside of you at 16 weeks?" Goldberg started losing control: "But what difference does it make if you can't have the baby? What difference does it make if you're going to bring a baby in and you can't feed it and you can't take care of it and then people end up killing their kids? I hate it!"
April 28 was apparently Abortion Uber Alles day at the liberal Web site Daily Kos. Aimee Thorne-Thomsen of the Pro-Choice Public Education Project stated that the number of women who receive abortions is “too low” in “Keep Abortions Safe and Legal? Yes. Make it Rare? Not the Point.” A separate article blasted the new law in Oklahoma that makes it mandatory for woman to receive ultrasounds by making crude comparisons and calling it “blackmail.”
Even though 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005, this was not enough for Thorne-Thomsen. She wrote, “On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low.”
On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams characterized as "highly restrictive" two abortion related laws recently passed by the Oklahoma state legislature over the Democratic governor's veto. Neither of the measures would apparently ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, as one law requires that an ultrasound of the unborn baby be performed and shown to a pregnant woman before an abortion could take place. On the April 27 show, Williams related:
On World News Sunday, ABC anchor Dan Harris gave attention to the latest example of disrespect that one has come to expect to see aimed at the Catholic Church as he recounted that a British foreign ministry official had made a crack about Pope Benedict opening an abortion clinic or marketing condoms, prompting an apology from the British government. On the April 25 show, Harris relayed the incident:
The Pentagon rescinded the invitation of evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at its May 6 National Day of Prayer event because of complaints about his previous comments about Islam.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation expressed its concern over Graham's involvement with the event in an April 19 letter sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. MRFF's complaint about Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham, focused on remarks he made after 9/11 in which he called Islam "wicked" and "evil" and his lack of apology for those words.
Col. Tom Collins, an Army spokesman, told ABC News on April 22, "This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue."
A Sarasota, Florida, doctor recently lost his medical license on the basis of an error he made in 2006 in an abortion procedure where he mistakenly took the life of the healthier fraternal twin of a boy diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome.
In covering the story, most media outlets have noted that Dr. Matthew Kachinas aborted "the wrong baby."
Baptist theologian and radio program host Dr. Albert Mohler took the airwaves on his April 19 program to discuss both the case in question and the media's coverage thereof.
Here's what he said about the latter at the opening of Monday's program:
Last week I saw a news story that simply stopped me in my tracks, and I wrote about it at AlbertMohler.com, an article entitled, "Aborting the 'Wrong' Baby?" There's a question mark at the end of that question. It has to do with a news story that came out of Florida.
Dr. Matthew Kachinas had been stripped of his medical license last week by a Florida medical review board for -- and this is how the media discussed it -- for aborting the wrong baby.
In her April 26 piece, the Newsweek staff writer cranks up the melodrama volume knob to 11, lamenting that Democrats are not the reliable vehicle for the pro-abortion lobby that they were 30 years ago (emphasis mine):
What is the religious right doing by campaigning against abortion? First and foremost, its efforts seem aimed at trying to keep church pews filled by bringing more and more poor people into the world. Second, it will just end up boosting the teen unwed pregnancy rate every time it guilt trips an unwed, pregnant teen into bringing to term a child she does not want and cannot afford to raise. Third, it will effectively subjugate women and girls in the same way women and girls in developing nations are consigned to a life of child-bearing and little else.
"The Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy in Chantilly proudly and purposefully limited what it would stock on its shelves. But it turns out that no birth control pills, no condoms, no porn, no tobacco and even no makeup added up to one thing: No customers," Dvorak wrote.
"John T. Bruchalski, president of Divine Mercy Care and the doctor who opened the pharmacy, then had to close it, said he wanted a place where pharmacists ‘could bring their conscience into the store, rather than hang it up at the door when they entered,'" she continued.
"Shoppers in Northern Virginia apparently weren't clamoring for a place to pick up cough medicine that also didn't sell porn, cigs and mascara. Selections of these wicked products (especially mascara - have you seen the array recently? Glittery! Lengthening! Stiletto lashes! Such naughtiness!) are available in just about every supermarket and big-box store across the country."
Actor Ben Stiller is known for playing the funny man in many of his movies, but his recent movie leaves little to laugh about. Stiller stars in the movie “Greenberg” with Greta Gerwig, whose character gets an abortion after discovering she has an unwanted pregnancy. The problem with the film, however, is that the abortion is portrayed as no big deal.
On April 12, Daily Beast’s Stephen Farber approvingly wrote, “When she learns that she is pregnant as a result of a relationship that ended more than a month earlier, she decides to go to the hospital for an abortion, and she returns home without experiencing much pain or guilt.”
The skewed portrayal of Gerwig’s character is far from the truth. According to the National Right to Life, women who get abortions suffer from depression, hemorrhages, sterility, infections, and even death. Suicides can also occur afterwards.
Associated Press writer John Flesher seems to be one bitter guy.
Flesher, along with whoever (possibly Flesher himself) came up with the headline for his Saturday report on Bart Stupak's decision not to run for re-election in Michigan's 1st Congressional District, tells readers that:
Tea Partiers are poor winners.
The residents of Stupak's district are federal money-grubbers who can be fooled by candidates holding the right position on "hot-button issues."
Based on a poli sci prof's contention, Stupak (pictured at top right with his wife in an AP photo) would "absolutely" have won as all the evidence he needed to "prove" the nine-term congressman's re-electability.
Here are the opening paragraphs from the flailing Flesher:
By the time I wrote "Live Tweeting Abortion, Part X" as well as two WorldNetDaily.com columns (here and here), I was sicker of Angie Jackson than anyone, and I know many of you were plenty sick of her. I felt personally responsible for giving Angie 5 of her 15 minutes of fame.
There were still a few who kept tabs on Angie after that, even though I stopped. They let me know when she tweeted on March 13 that she locks her 4-year-old in his bedroom and on March 23 that she is still married to one guy (the father of her born child) while shacking up with another (the father of her aborted child).
Messed up, but we knew that.
Now, though, Angie's tweets warrant one more post.
"A strong Democratic majority in Congress does not mean a strong abortion-rights majority," Newsweek's Sarah Kliff lamented in a March 31 "Web exclusive," the subhead for which asks "[W]hy is there an anti-abortion-rights majority in the House?"
"That fact became painfully clear during the health-care-reform debate, when intraparty fissures over abortion threatened to derail the Democrats' legislation, arguably more so than any other issue," the Newsweek staffer continued, going on to paint the Democratic Party as more tolerant on dissent than Republicans when it comes to the stance of its politicians on abortion-related issues.
In fact, Kliff griped, it's the Democrats' fielding of pro-life candidates in conservative congressioanl districts that gums up its ability to "govern," she concluded, pointing to how pro-life concerns over federal subsidies for abortion impacted the ObamaCare legislative debate. Notice in the first line below how Kliff cribbed from pro-choice activists' language about abortion rights (emphasis mine):
Democrats clearly support a woman's right to choose in their party platform. But when it comes to candidates in swing states and more-conservative districts, the party often supports people who oppose abortion rights. It's a strategy that has helped Democrats take over Congress and amass a commanding majority in the last two elections. But the health-care debate shows the challenges it presents for them when trying to govern.
This item may not surprise those of us who have watched politicians take the safe way out at any opportunity, but it will give any voters who come across it reason to doubt any Democratic congressman who says that he or she voted no on principle against Obamacare on Sunday, March 21.
This explains why it hasn't been covered much -- and maybe not at all -- in any establishment media outlet.
On March 26, the Catholic News Agency had an exclusive interview with Michigan congressman Bart Stupak. Wait until you see some of the things he admitted to CNA (bolds are mine):
Rep. Stupak: Speaker Pelosi had extra health care votes 'in her pocket'
The health care reform bill would have passed the House without the votes of Rep. Bart Stupak’s pro-life Democrats because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “always carries a number of votes in her pocket,” Stupak told CNA in a Thursday phone interview.
How dare pro-life activists have an unassuming Web site and advertising campaign that doesn't explicitly condemn abortion!
That was the message Susan Dominus conveyed in her March 26 New York Times article, "In Subway Ads on Abortion, a Pretense of Neutrality."
Dominus attacked recent ads for abortionchangesyou.com, a Web site in which anybody touched by abortion can anonymously share their feelings and learn that they are not alone. Dominus began her story by noting the innocuous nature of the advertisement, but turns on the Web site after revealing its association with Project Rachel, a Catholic initiative.
After describing the advertisement, Dominus disparaged all pro-lifers by saying, "as anti-abortion strategies go, it is relatively oblique - a far cry from a brick in the window or a death threat to a member of Congress."
Words matter. They speak volumes about issues. So when individuals or groups try to change the words associated with a heated political issue, take note and take care.
The folks at National Public Radio understand the power of words. Managing Editor David Sweeney announced yesterday that the station would no longer refer to people in the abortion debate as "pro-choice" and "pro-life." Instead, the station will say "abortion rights advocates" and "abortion rights opponents," according to a memo circulated to NPR staff.
In making this change, NPR is shifting the terms of the debate to make it more friendly to the pro-choice position.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has some doubts about those who oppose abortion on moral, religious or ethical grounds. Apparently to him, it's just an anti-class issue in which the poor are locked out of abortion.
"I want to make a point they're wrong on two important counts," Klein said. "Number one, often times when you create more insurance coverage you reduce abortion. There is a study in The New England Journal of Medicine this month that after Massachusetts brought in their reforms that look a lot like our reforms abortion dropped 2 percent because people have more access to birth control."
Back when she had a show on the now-defunct, fringe left-wing Air America Radio, Rachel Maddow ran a regular feature called "Ask Dr. Maddow."
It began with an announcer stating, "Rachel Maddow is a doctor. Just not that kind of doctor." You know, the indispensible kind who can save lives. Instead, Maddow is of the academic variety, courtesy of a doctorate in political science from Oxford.
The purpose of the feature was twofold: first, to answer listeners' questions, and second, to remind anyone within earshot that Maddow has a rarefied advanced degree and, chances are, you don't.