NRL News

A Tale of Two Editorials

by | Jun 8, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-Life Mitt Romney and Pro-Abortion Barack Obama

What with an imaginary ‘war on women,’ a real (and crushing) loss in Wisconsin, and a pro-abortion President who seemingly puts his foot his mouth on a regular basis (which could apply to either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama), it’s not the best of times for abortion advocates. We’re going to end the week at National Right to Life News Today with reflections on two editorials, one pro-abortion, one pro-life.

The New Jersey Star Ledger opines that “A new generation must recognize threat to abortion rights” (not the threat to babies whose lives are extinguished when this “right” is exercised). The editorial reads as if five different writers contributed and someone (poor guy/gal) had to stitch the parts together. The seams are showing everywhere.

On the one hand, we’re told that pro-lifers have all the youth and energy; the “political winds” are blowing in the pro-life direction allowing for passage of a “slew” of laws; pro-abortion leaders concede their movement “needs younger leaders”; the percentage of self-identified “pro-choice” American is at a  record low; the Internet is making it easier to get the pro-life message out; and, for good measure, in 2010 Republicans (overwhelmingly pro-life) won a majority of female voters.

On the other hand, pro-abortionists have…… Well, according to the editorial nothing, except the urgent need to scare women into coming into their camp. All in all a remarkable admission (see

Then there is editorial from the Augusta [Georgia] Chronicle, headlined “Blind spot on abortion: Media selectively ignore gender-selection termination outrage.”

The clever beginning is if (as Dan Rather insists) there is no liberal bias in the news, “then there has to be some other explanation for the media’s glaring blind spots. Solar flares maybe?”

What blind spots? There is the revolt against the Obama Administration’s infamous mandate requiring religious institutions and individuals of conscience to pay for health insurance plans that cover medical procedures and drugs contrary to their religious beliefs and consciences. You’d hardly know there is widespread resistance.

There is a media “all atwitter” about “some supposed ‘war on women’” when “what may amount to real violence against females” is ignored.  By that the Chronicle is referring to gender-selective abortions in the United States and videos that abortion clinics are willing to perform them even when (as in Arizona) it is against state law.

And of course there was absolutely minimal attention paid to a vote in the House of Representatives to ban sex-selection abortions which received a strong majority but not the two-thirds required for passage.

After noting the virtual media blackout of the vote on the three major networks the Chronicle concludes

“How does that happen? How do all the major news broadcast operations miss the same big story? Osmosis?

“Well, ABC did mention it – at 3 a.m. – but dismissively called the House vote ‘a bit of election-year political theater.’

“Really? Banning the killing of fetuses because they’re girls is nothing more than ‘theater’?

“Oh, that’s right. It was conservatives who wanted to ban it.

“Must be solar flares. Can’t be bias!”

Both editorials are telling the truth—one about the nation’s movement on abortion, the other on how the truth of gendercide is suppressed.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

Categories: Politics