NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-abortionists roll out the “experts” whose abortion advocacy is conveniently ignored

by | Jul 7, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

sorosmediaAs I have often remarked, I wonder if pro-abortionists ever reflect on what they say. By that I mean (a) often in the same article they inadvertently undermine the very thesis they are promoting; and (b) they are shamelessly hypocritical–or, if you care to be kind, tunnel-visioned.

A friend was nice enough to forward a post from Media Matters, a pro-abortion website that runs interference for the Democratic Party night and day. (And if they could find any time in between, they’d do it then, too.)

Alexandrea Boguhn’s lament is that reporters–make that ANY reporter–allow the pro-life side to have a voice when discussing (stay with me on this) pro-life legislation without preemptively negating what they say. Have they no shame?

This is the error of false equivalency (although Boguhn doesn’t use that phraseology). Unlike pro-abortionists, pro-lifers don’t have the designated “experts” on their side. Soooooo if reporters aren’t “fact-checking anti-abortion proponents who claim, against the advice of medical experts, that the legislation helps women,” then, they’ve missed their obligation.

Boguhn is riffing off a July 2 post by Amanda Marcotte which appeared on the militantly pro-abortion site Rhrealitycheck.org. Referring to the Supreme Court’s actions on a pro-life Texas bill, Marcotte (according to Boguhn),

explained that although the piece’s [NPR’s] efforts to quote both sides “is not, in itself, an issue,” a statement from a representative from Texas Right to Life, which claimed the law was simply meant to protect women’s health, went unquestioned. “What is frustrating is that there is not a whiff of an effort to provide actual real-world facts to give the audience context,” wrote Marcotte.

Do you get it? Okay, reporters can hold their noses and let those whacky pro-lifers have their two cents. But….

But media outlets must then, according to Marcotte and Boguhn, “fact-check” until they get the real “truth”: that the experts dismiss pro-life claims (in this case to protect women by requiring the abortion clinics be upgraded) as hooey.

Two quick points. First, the usual suspects–the “experts”– have been in the pro-abortion camps for forever. On a scale of one to ten, their objectivity number is minus 3.

We’ve written about this umpteen times, most recently here.

There NRLC President Carol Tobias talked about how a certain “expert” trolled for compliant reporters who would accept his statements as gospel. As Mrs. Tobias explained, what he told reporters in a conference call had one objective: to undermine the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

But there was one problem: he was flatly wrong on at least two critically important points which not only wholly undermined his critique but also exposed his agenda for what it was–not “science” but partisan politics.

Second (which is obvious), the pro-abortion “experts” ought to be fact-checked. If they are up to their collective eyeballs in abortion advocacy, don’t you think it a reporter’s obligation to take their claims with a grain (actually a pound) of salt?

You would think….

Categories: Media Bias