If you’ve noticed the pro-life side of the abortion debate receives little or no attention when the networks report on the abortion issue, you’re not alone. On Aug. 8, demonstrators and pro-life speakers gathered outside ABC News’ Washington, D.C. office to demand fair coverage of abortion by the networks on August 8. The “Life March on the Media Rally” was hosted by pro-life advocacy group Live Action.
During the event, Live Action President Lila Rose called for a “180 in reporting” on abortion, the “most important human rights abuse of our day.” Rose cited the lack of coverage the issue receives, saying, “Part of the desire to not cover it or to only cover the pro-abortion side is because there’s an intuitive understanding there. When you tell the truth about what abortion does to a baby, people get upset.” She continued, “And that’s the very news that is, in a way, the most important news for ABC and the other groups to censor.” Video below:
Live Action, a "new media movement dedicated to ending abortion and building a culture of life," hosted a "Stop the Killing" infanticide protest in front of abortionist Cesare Santangelo’s clinic in Washington, D.C. on May 1, 2013.
At the protest, MRC’s Culture and Media Institute asked speakers about the media's coverage of infanticide, especially in connection with the Kermit Gosnell case – watch their answers below.
David Shuster has left no doubt on what side he comes down in the debate over the planned airing of a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl. Sponsored by Focus on the Family, the ad tells the story of how Pam Tebow ignored medical advice to have an abortion, and instead gave birth to Tim, who of course went on to become a legendary college football player and inspiration to millions for his faith and character.
On MSNBC this afternoon, Shuster hosted a segment on the issue bringing together Charmaine Yoest, head of Americans United for Life and Erin Matson of NOW. Dr. Yoest was no more than a few seconds into her defense of the ad when Shuster began shouting at her.
It was NOW/Shuster united against Yoest, but she handled it as deftly as, well, a Gator receiver beating a double-team to catch a TD pass from . . . Tim Tebow.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg devoted most of her article in Sunday’s New York Times detailing the concerns of radical feminists over the future of legalized abortion, specifically its support among the younger generations. Stolberg tried to downplay the larger opposition to abortion in the 18-30 year old demographic, and only one of the pro-abortion activists that she quoted in her article belonged to this group.
The New York Times correspondent began her article, “In Support of Abortion, It’s Personal vs. Political,” with a sympathetic personal anecdote from one of the aging radicals, Representative Louise Slaughter of New York: “In the early 1950s, a coal miner’s daughter from rural Kentucky named Louise McIntosh encountered the shadowy world of illegal abortion. A friend was pregnant...and Ms. McIntosh was keeper of a secret that, if spilled, could have led to family disgrace. The turmoil ended quietly in a doctor’s office... Today, Louise McIntosh is Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York. At 80, she is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus — a member of what Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, calls ‘the menopausal militia.’”
This so-called militia, and the wider “abortion rights movement,” according to Stolberg, has been “forced...to turn inward, raising questions about how to carry their agenda forward in a complex, 21st-century world.” The reason: “a generational divide — not because younger women are any less supportive of abortion rights than their elders, but because their frame of reference is different.” The correspondent continued that “[p]olls over the last two decades have shown that a clear majority of Americans support the right to abortion, and there’s little evidence of a difference between those over 30 and under 30, but the vocabulary of the debate has shifted with the political culture.”