Twice in one week, the Washington Post actually treats the presidential campaigners (and pro-lifers) fairly

By Dave Andrusko

Gianna Jessen

Gianna Jessen

What is the explanation? A guilty conscience? A residual commitment to “fairness” (however inadequately applied)? A student intern who didn’t get the message that no pro-lifer should ever be allowed to speak in her/his own voice?

For the second time in a week, the Washington Post has posted a video that does not hue to the elect-Hillary Clinton at all costs/censor all pro-life speech line that is the hallmark of the Post’s coverage.

Last week abortion survivor Gianna Jessen spoke to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution which was holding a hearing, “The Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.”

We wrote about her testimony here.

On Monday the Post actually put up a video of her testimony with the caption, “Antiabortion activist Gianna Jessen, who survived her mother’s attempted abortion, testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary Hearings Sept. 23.”

On top of that, just as I was about to post this story, I ran across an accompanying account on the Post webpage, which included her testimony!

Wow!

On top of that, last week (and this still baffles me), the newspaper posted a clip of Hillary Clinton speaking about Donald Trump during a video conference of the Laborers’ International Union of North America.

subscribetonrlnews

That was the now famous moment when a very tired looking Clinton says, plaintively and angrily, “Now having said all this” [referring to the preceding litany of items attesting to her wonderfulness and Trump’s awfulness], “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead, you might ask.

Yes, you might.

I suppose you should never look a gift horse in the mouth. But I am still stunned.

Amidst the endless Trump (and pro-life) bashing, can we hope for another morsel or two?

I wouldn’t hold my breath. My guess is they’ve already excelled their fairness allotment.