One way reporters are constantly telling us what they believe is inscribed in the words they use to describe matters of life and death, like abortion.
Take this Associated Press introduction, for example, from Amarillo, Texas:
A federal judge in Texas raised questions Wednesday about a Christian group’s effort to overturn the decades-old U.S. approval of a leading abortion drug, in a case that could threaten the country’s most common method for ending pregnancies.
The first annoying tic? Killing unborn babies is coldly described as “ending pregnancies.” Liberal journalists deeply revere the right to abortion, so it’s “threatening” the most common method of baby murder. They join their fellow liberals in calling it a “medication abortion,” when Mifeprex (mifepristone) can also be described as a homicide pill.
In the same way, it sounds cruel to report that supporters of the pill “say it’s safe and effective,” when it’s obviously not safe for the baby. MSNBC’s Joy Reid touted “the extremely safe and effective medication is used to induce abortion and to manage miscarriage or early pregnancy loss, which can, by the way, be life-threatening.” Mifepristone isn’t “life-threatening”?
This inhumane approach to the unborn came crashing through a CNN.com article on drug safety: “Data analyzed by CNN shows mifepristone is even safer than some common, low-risk prescription drugs, including penicillin and Viagra … It is also a safer option than both procedural abortion or childbirth.” They can’t acknowledge how it’s safe for only half of the humans in this equation.
MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle warned this decision could have “major repercussions for abortion care,” as if “abortion care” isn’t a soulless term. “PBS NewsHour” turned to Kaiser Health News reporter Sarah Varney for her pro-abortion takes, even though her online biography says she has “a special focus on racial and ethnic health disparities and the impacts of federal and state health laws on vulnerable populations, including children.”
Reporters described the pill as “long-approved,” and noted the Food and Drug Administration ruled that way in 2000, but didn’t explain that decision was made by Clinton appointees who may have been thinking more about politics than science. But liberals are always suggesting, subtly or unsubtly, that they are synonymous with “science.” They may treat abortion like something that’s sacred, but they don’t really believe in the sacred.
News stories highlighted the religious or ideological tilt of the “Christian group” or the “Christian conservatives,” while there is no use of “liberal” or “secular.” CBS overnight anchor Anne-Marie Green proclaimed, “A lawsuit from Christian conservatives aims to overturn the [Food and Drug Administration] approval of mifepristone.”
Reporters routinely noted the judge in the case was a “Trump appointee” and a “conservative.” On NPR, reporter Sarah McCammon declared, “So, his name is Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, and he has a lot of critics. And that is based on his track record. He was appointed by former President Donald Trump. He has long-standing ties to conservative religious groups.”
That may be true, but these journalists are really terrible at highlighting the liberal side’s “long-standing ties” to anyone. They won’t note that President Joe Biden, the “devout Catholic,” was endorsed by Planned Parenthood and other abortion-industry groups. Naturally, the Justice Department and the FDA during this presidency have no “ties” to anyone as they defend “medication abortions.”
It’s also sadly routine that the two sides of this debate are “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights,” as CBS reporter Christina Ruffini proclaimed it. Conservatives are always anti-everything.
Abortion is such a highly charged moral issue. Neutrality can be difficult to achieve. But no one in the Old Media seems to be attempting to achieve it.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
