 By Joseph J. Sabia
Published 6/11/2002
Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center (MRC) has been reporting on liberal bias in the media since 1987. His organization has taken special interest in examining bias against pro-lifers in media coverage of abortion. Researchers at the MRC might want to take a look at a recent story in the Associated Press (AP) for the latest installment of pro-abortion propaganda. On May 30th, AP National Writer David Crary penned a piece entitled Abortion Foes Reveal Deceptive Tactic. The opening paragraph sets the tone: Anti-abortion activists have revealed the latest covert tactic in their running the battle against abortion clinics: A woman posing as a pregnant teen has been calling clinics in hopes of drawing them into violating the law. This is the sort of writing that passes for journalism at the Associated Press. Why is ascertaining whether the law is being enforced “deceptive”? When law enforcement agents send kids under the age of 18 into stores to see if clerks will sell them cigarettes, is this reported with a blazing headline “Cigarette Foes Reveal Deceptive Tactic”? Sting operations are set up to determine whether supermarket cashiers will sell alcohol to those under age 21. In the area of sex crimes, we see female cops dressing up as prostitutes to catch johns. FBI agents pose as underage girls in online chat rooms in order to get child sex offenders off the street. Where is the media hysteria over these "deceptions"? Mark Crutcher, the president of Life Dynamics—the pro-life group that organized these “deceptive” phone calls—said that a representative of his organization phoned over 800 abortion clinics throughout the country “pretending to be a 13-year-old girl impregnated by her 22-year-old boyfriend.” According to Crutcher, “more than 90 percent of the clinic employees handling the calls indicated that they would conceal the information provided by the caller.” The concealing of information is a clear violation of all state laws on statutory rape. Furthermore, several clinics gave the caller “tips” on how to conceal information, avoid detection, and circumvent parental consent laws. Who is deceptive here? Who is encouraging violation of state law? This is liberalism taken to its logical extreme—no regard for the rule of law. These abortionists do not agree with the laws on the books, so rather than organize a majority vote to change them, they cavalierly break laws and call their opponents “anti-abortion, doctor-shooting extremists.” And because abortionists hold significant political power—especially among the feminists in Congress—no one will ever investigate them. Over 60 percent of states in the union have parental involvement laws for abortion. Parental involvement laws include consent laws, which require minors to obtain parental consent before obtaining an abortion, and notification laws, which merely require that parents be informed. These parental involvement bills were passed by a majority of representatives in each state legislature and signed into law. If these laws are not enforced, then what is the point of passing them in the first place? Abortionists at clinics run by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation are, at this moment, above the law. And they are quite brazen about it. Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt said: ”I expect employees to comply with state laws, but I also encourage them to provide callers with what I’d call a comfort level…[If someone calls us] who’s worried and scared, I think, ‘How can I help her feel comfortable, get her to the professionals who can help?’” Excuse me? Since when does providing a ‘comfort level’ supercede obeying state law? If a 13-year-old girl calls a clinic and announces that she is pregnant by her 22-year-old boyfriend, shouldn’t the clinic be concerned with seeing the boyfriend prosecuted? And if the state in which the girl resides has a parental involvement law, shouldn’t the clinic insist that the girl tell her parents? Stephanie Nueller, spokesman for the National Abortion Federation, offered: ”In most instances, the law recognizes that that the one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work on such a sensitive issue." It appears as though the abortionists have declared themselves the new Supreme Court. Nueller has put the public on notice that clinics will be interpreting law and determining how loosely or strictly to obey it. Because abortionists are politically influential, few politicians will call for legal investigations of clinics. Politicians don’t want shrill lesbians bellowing “He’s taking away my right to choose!!!” in the middle of an election campaign. The major media outlets will not cover this issue fairly because they view abortions like jello—there’s always room for more. When Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi,” Feldt and Nueller are exactly the types of women he was talking about. These women want abortions performed. They get depressed when the abortion rate goes down because they view more abortions as a sign of greater women’s liberation. Abortion is the “Holy Grail” to which the feminazis dedicate their lives to chasing. Life Dynamics has done an incredible public service by revealing just how psychotic these feminazis are. Let no one ever tell you that the Planned Parenthood crowd is pro-women; they are concerned with one thing—getting as many abortions performed as possible. We now know that they are willing to permit rapists and child sex offenders to get away with crimes against women as long as it means more abortions are performed at their clinics. Abortionists may use euphemisms like “reproductive health” and “choice” to mask their real intentions—just as Hermann Goering used the terms “protective custody” and “the total solution” to mask his—but everyone should know what these people are talking about. Planned Parenthood has now formed an alliance with sex offenders and rapists to pervert the rule of law. Perhaps Bill Clinton should look for work at an abortion clinic. He’d be right at home.
|
