Even the title of AP’s piece showed how pro-abort the outlet is.
The Associated Press released a hit piece Thursday bashing the idea that some states are thinking about implementing fetal development videos in their schools' sexual education classes. The piece titled, “Sex ed classes in some states may soon watch a fetal development video from an anti-abortion group” was chock full of bias and would rather kids be hidden from the truth of what happens during a pregnancy.
Presently bills are going through the Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia legislatures that, if passed, would require or at least suggest for fetal development videos to be played during sex ed classes.
Two years ago the pro-life group Live Action released a video called Baby Olivia. The video highlights the process that a baby experiences in utero to go from a single-celled human to a baby with a beating heart, brainwaves, fingers and toes. It’s a lovely and accurate depiction of the nine-month process and is very educational.
States like those above, as well as North Dakota, which passed a similar law last year, recognize that. They believe students who are learning about sex and reproduction, should learn about the gestational process too.
Nonetheless, AP is not satisfied with the move.
“Baby Olivia isn’t a real baby. It’s an animated fetus that develops over the course of a three-minute video,” AP asserted. AP critiqued the fact that the video was animated. By that logic, should diagrams of penises and and vaginas be actual pictures of penises and vaginas for schools? Or what about the plastic body parts used to understand anatomy? Should those be real body parts then AP?
The outlet went on to insist that the Baby Olivia video is “anti-abortion misinformation.” Seeing how a baby develops isn’t anti-abortion. In fact, the Baby Olivia video doesn't have anything to do with abortion. It simply points out the fact that at the moment of conception, life begins, but AP, like much of the left, doesn't want the public to know that because it goes against their narrative.
AP noted that “Iowa physicians and educators said references to fetal ‘heartbeats’ are widely disputed. At six weeks, the embryo isn’t yet a fetus and doesn’t have a heart.”
It also critiques the words that the Baby Olivia video uses like “playing,” “exploring,” “sighing,” and making “speaking movements.”
“Those words assign human traits and properties to a fetus,” AP wrote. Yeah … maybe because the "fetus" is a human …? Just a thought.
AP did bring in some great points that supporters of the bill made. Iowa Representative Luana Stoltenberg said, “What’s the worst that can happen? Maybe a young child learns how they are developed and grow and so if they become pregnant, they decide maybe I don’t want an abortion? Is that a horrible thing?”
Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action also insisted that critics against playing the video in sex ed classes are in opposition of it because it “directly threatens their worldview, which is that this is not a life that is worthy of protection.”
AP’s language and phrasing asserted that Rose was incorrect. (HINT: she’s not)
In all, it’s obvious that AP is threatened by the educational Baby Olivia video. It shows what really happens during a pregnancy and AP, like most of the left doesn’t want you to see the truth as it may make you understand that ending life at any stage of a pregnancy is morally wrong.
