Watch how an AP reporter shapes and distorts pro-life legislative proposals

By Dave Andrusko

Yesterday we posted a summary overview of state legislation compiled by Ingrid Duran, who is the state legislative director for National Right to Life. I’d like to take five minutes of your time in the last post of the day to outline a typical media hatchet job on pro-life proposals which combines pro-abortion talking points, a dismissive attitude toward the measures, and (of course) a healthy dose of snark.

The author is Associated Press reporter James MacPherson and the state is North Dakota. Right out of the box, there is no mistaking where this story is headed:

BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota’s Republican-led Legislature reopened the abortion debate Monday following a six-year pause despite critics saying the state is setting itself up for another round of expensive legal fights over legislation they describe as misleading and unconstitutional.

So, whatever they are, the proposals are “misleading and unconstitutional,” which means the legislators are merely setting the state up for futile and “expensive” legal wrangling.

You notice, by the way, that the legislation is dismissed out of hand in the first paragraph by its critics before there is syllable one from proponents. Just guessing, but were a pro-abortionist to proposal a law, I’m thinking it would not be cavalierly tossed in the circular file.

And, by the why, can’t those pro-life legislators leave well enough alone? Can’t they extend that “six-year pause” for, say, a millennium or two?

MacPherson doubles down the criticism in the second paragraph, not even bothering to pull in “critics.” He’ll editorialize on his own, thank you.

Similar fights are expected in several states over abortion rights this year. But in North Dakota, home to only one abortion clinic, the legislation marks a return to the debate for the oil-rich state, which had the money to defend some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws in 2013 when other conservative states didn’t.

Geez, there’s only one abortion clinic in the whole state. Why bother, MacPherson implies.

And what makes all this pro-life silliness possible? The money generated by an “oil-rich state.”

The fact of the matter is that the two proposals MacPherson mentions have generated either (a)conflicting circuit court opinions or (b) not been tested in court.

The first is the ban on the dismemberment of living unborn babies. MacPherson writes

Laws banning the procedure are on the books in Mississippi and West Virginia, while Ohio’s new law will take effect in March, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the New York-based Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research organization.

In fact, ten states have banned this hideous abortion technique which uses steel tools to rip heads and legs off of tiny torsos as the defenseless child bleeds to death. I could say more about how he recycles the standard pro-abortion talking points, but this is the last post for Wednesday.

The other proposal is Abortion Pill Reversal (APR). MacPherson goes to the abortion industry to ask whether an unborn child whose mother has taken the first of the two-drugs can survive if the woman does not take the second drug and a vigorous regimen of progesterone is administered.

“There is no credible, medically accepted evidence that a medication abortion can be reversed,” harrumphs Tammi Kromenaker, director of the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, the state’s lone abortion clinic. “A vote for (the bill) is a vote to lie to North Dakota woman.”

What else would you expect the Abortion Industry to say? Hurrah for a woman who second-guesses her decision to chemically abort her child? Cheers for a genuine exercise of “choice”? Not hardly.

But, in fact, as NRL News Today has discussed on many occasions, the abortion pill reversal makes intuitive sense and is borne out by the hundreds of babies already saved and by a careful study the results of which were published in Issues in Law and Medicine.

You would think a reporter for the Associated Press might know some of this and, if he didn’t, find out. If he did know, and just chose to ignore the countervailing evidence that both proposals are realistic, he really, truly isn’t doing his job.