By Dave Andrusko
March for Life routinely draws 100,000 or more attendees. Want to guess if it will get the kind of attention the pro-abortion “Women’s March” already is?
Although we are delighted to have teenagers reading NRL News Today, for the most part I can assume most of our readers are adults. So, it doesn’t exactly come as a surprise to us that a couple of weeks out, the relentlessly pro-abortion, anti-Donald Trump Washington Post is already writing puff pieces about The “Women’s March” which will take place January 21, the day after Mr. Trump advances from President-elect to become our 45th President.
You simply cannot exaggerate how servile is the portrait of the guiding light behind the gathering. What’s the headline? “It started with a retiree. Now the Women’s March could be the biggest inauguration demonstration.”
Here’s the first paragraph from the story written by Perry Stein and Sandhya Somashekhar:
Teresa Shook never considered herself much of an activist, or someone particularly versed in feminist theory. But when the results of the presidential election became clear, the retired attorney in Hawaii turned to Facebook and asked: What if women marched on Washington around Inauguration Day en masse?
So it all started with a Shook Facebook post and, as they say, the rest is history.
Judging by the story, it’s going to be the usual motley collection of “progressive” groups. But what is important to us, is, as you would expect, Planned Parenthood has signed on.
Nobody actually knows how many people will show up, but, we’re told, “more than 100,000 people have registered their plans to attend the Women’s March.”
Just two points. First, neither in this life nor the next could you/would you expect the Post to write well in advance about the March for Life. Indeed, the trend in the last few years is to treat the March (which draws anywhere from 80,000 to 120,000 people) almost as if co-equal number of pro-lifers and pro-abortionists show up on the March which begins on the Mall and advances to the steps of the Supreme Court.
That merely a handful of pro-abortionists will stand outside the Supreme Court is enough cause for the Post to write a story about them and/or their exchanges with pro-lifers.
Second, the media habitually treats “women” as if they are some homogenous blob that is as pro-abortion and “progressive” as reporters are. But as we have explained repeatedly since the November 8 elections, Trump fared far better among women than we were lectured he possibly could.
For starters, contrary to predictions, there was no surge of female voters, which the commentariat and the Hillary Clinton campaign were convinced would happen. As we’ve noted on many occasions, the African American community overwhelmingly votes Democratic which, unless you take that into account, skews how the “female” vote is understood.
So while Clinton beat Trump by 12 points among all women, Trump won 53% of white women. If you break the numbers down further, what pro-abortion Clinton would probably call “deplorables”–white women who were not college graduates–voted for Trump 62% to 34%.
So, the Post and kindred media outlets will inundate us with stories, telling us that “women” have come to Washington, D.C. to protest the election of Donald Trump. At the same time, there may (or may not) be a blurb a day ahead of time about the March for Life.
How’s that for fair and balanced?
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.