Bizarrely insists this “legitimizes” attacks on PPFA
By Dave Andrusko
It’s funny how these things come together.
On the floor, next to my desk, is something I downloaded from the Boston Globe intending to write about it. But then, I had asked myself, what’s the “news”?
The Globe had simply massaged what it headlined, “A dozen new abortion restrictions,” which consisted of press release information provided by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the pro-abortion ACLU. The excuse to run this free of charge propaganda was that pro-lifers in Massachusetts are contemplating trying to amend the state Constitution as a step toward banning state funding of abortion.
A newspaper regurgitates undigested what pro-abortionists want circulated. Not exactly breaking news. A regular diet of this is what readers are subjected to.
So why mention it today? Simply because the George Soros-funded, Bill and Hillary Clinton-loving Media Matters went after the Washington Post for allegedly “legitimizing” what it called “attacks on Planned Parenthood.”
I’m not going to spend five pages debunking the debunkers. It’s the usual thread-worn pro-abortion claim that any and all pro-life scholarly research or investigating reporting is axiomatically “junk science” or “fake news,” respectively.
Media Matter’s argument was that earlier this month the Post had committed a cardinal sin. The Health 202, described as the Post’s health care newsletter, had the audacity to feature “an exclusive preview of an anti-Planned Parenthood report from the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI”).
That’s bad enough. But worse. “After the full report’s publication, anti-abortion groups and outlets pointed to the Post’s exclusive to legitimize the misinformation the report included or promoted the report themselves.”
Worse yet [!], Media Matters tells us, “Since its launch in March, The Health 202 has frequently quoted anti-abortion organizations.”
And if ALL that weren’t horrible enough, “The Health 202 omitted context from an earlier Wash. Post fact check that would have discredited an anti-abortion organization.”
Three quick points.
#1. Pro-abortion organizations and their think-tank partners on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis have reports cited all over the Washington Post, and not just in Health 202, as well as in most-to-all major media outlets. With an occasional exception, they are treated as so reliable there is no need to offer a pro-life rebuttal. The data is treated as unimpeachable.
#2. Does anyone over the age of six think this treatment by the Media Establishment is not parlayed by pro-abortionists into raising money and visibility? If pro-lifers get a crumb or two, the Media Matters of this world treat it as if they got an entire bakery of attention. And
#3.The part about omitting “context” made me laugh. Does any publication besides pro-life outlets such as NRL News Today ever mention the cheek-by-jowl relationship of Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher, its former “special affiliate”? How often in the blizzard of favorable media attention does Planned Parenthood’s reliance on and embrace of abortion get mentioned?
Perhaps before bashing a newsletter of the Post for giving pro-lifers any attention, Media Matters might ask itself how often does the Post give Planned Parenthood mountains of uncritical love.