NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Servile media portraits of pro-abortion leaders is par for the course

by | Sep 7, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Cecile Richards

Cecile Richards

Thanks to all of you who kind enough to read and repost and retweet the story I wrote Wednesday about the amazing decision to award the Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award to Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards/PPFA. This prestigious award is supposed to be in recognition of “the contributions of scientists, physicians, and public servants who have made major or advances in the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of human disease.”

In a manner of speaking PPFA may indeed be the brightest and the best but certainly not in the realm of the “prevention of human disease.” Rather they are at the top of the killing chain because of their unparalleled proficiency at eviscerating upwards of seven million unborn babies during their inglorious history.

This slavish devotion to a $1.3 billion dollar “non-profit” (and to its CEO who rakes in a salary in the neighborhood of $1 million dollars annually) is part and parcel of the kudos PPFA receives not just from foundations but also (and especially) from the major media. That uncritical attitude applies equally well to NARAL Pro-Choice America.

I remember musing about a profile of NARAL President Ilyse Hogue written by the Washington Post’s Ellen McCarthy. It’s not enough for the Media Establishment to throw hosannas at the leadership of the Abortion Industry. That just makes those who make billions off of dismembering unborn babies “heroes.” Their wonderfulness must be contrasted with those lame (at best) pro-lifers.

You have to read Style section writer McCarthy’s account to (dis)believe it.

As is so often the case, the story was timed to coincide with what was then Senate consideration of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The Post would rather write about anything other than dismembering, poisoning, shredding pain-capable unborn children so how about an in-kind contribution to NARAL?

McCarthy had the perfect hook for her story. Hogue was pregnant(with twins, no less) to disprove the myth that pro-abortionists “must hate children and not want to parent,” to quote Hogue.

And just to prove how dim pro-lifers are, we’re told the following:

At one point, she says, she walked into a hearing on Capitol Hill and an antiabortion advocate looked at her swollen belly and asked, “Is that real?”

Let’s go through this step by step. For starters, let’s assume for the sake of argument, this is an accurate quote. I highly doubt it, but let’s assume it’s more or less accurate rather than a self-serving paraphrase. What would the pro-lifer be trying to say?

Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Nine chances out of ten she (or he) was just trying to process what to most people (see below) would find a stark incongruity. The leader of an organization that never found an abortion it would condemn is pregnant with twins.

But it was more likely a tongue-in-cheek observation and/or an ice breaker. These are Hogue’s first children.

But it is intended to put pro-lifers in a negative light, so the supposed comment is part of the headline: “Abortion rights leader’s pregnancy surprises opponents: ‘Is that for real?’”

However, the real (and, as always, unintentional) revelation appears a few paragraphs earlier in McCarthy’s story:

In January, Hogue told her staff that she was pregnant after years of trying. “I admit, I had trepidation about telling people,” she says during an interview in her corner office in downtown Washington. Hogue, who has gray-green eyes and wavy auburn hair, says she wondered, “Is it going to change the way they look at me? Are they going to treat me differently?”

Get it? Hogue herself worried that telling her staff that she was pregnant would change the way THEY looked at her. SHE was the one who feared that her fellow pro-abortionists would be asking themselves (if not their boss) “Is that for real?”

Naturally we are told in the next sentence that her staff and board of directors “greeted her announcement with nothing but support.” Surprise, surprise.

Of course, to make the portrait just right, McCarthy paints Hogue as some kind of naïve naïf who practically wandered in off the streets to apply for the NARAL job. Who could have been an “odder choice” to succeed Nancy Keenan because, while a garden variety feminist, her “reproductive rights advocacy’ track record was limited to having “marched in an abortion rights rally during college,” to which McCarthy immediately adds, “but it hadn’t become one of her central issues.”

So her “progressive” credentials lay primarily in working for Moveon.org, eventually becoming its director of communications and political advocacy.

But as Newsbusters’ Kristine Marsh noted

Hogue has an extensive background in left-wing advocacy groups, and held senior positions at Move On.Org, and Media Matters. Not to mention that Hogue’s currently a contributor to the ultra-left-wing site, The Nation.

Two other quick thoughts. First, she threw her hat into the ring in 2013, and when “she dived into researching the position,” Hogue “came to fully appreciate reproductive freedom as ‘a foundational issue upon which everything else is built.’”

While this is pro-abortion boilerplate, it is a good reminder that to the NARALs and Planned Parenthoods of this world, the way–indeed the only way–women can attain true equality is if they can treat their unborn children as without any rights at all.

Equality is the birthright of the already-born.

Second, according to McCarthy, Hogue

presented the NARAL board with a three-pronged proposal that focused on moving the organization’s vision and narrative beyond Roe v. Wade, putting it in an offensive rather than a defensive position, and painting a public portrait of the opposition and their beliefs.

In English, that means hiding the abortion issue under the covers. Abortion cannot be a standalone issue (on that she is right). It must be part of a wider panoply of issues which obscures the loser: abortion. It also means tilling much plowed ground: slurring pro-lifers with any label they can conjure up.

Finally, “Under her leadership,” we’re told, NARAL led the fight to block the nomination of an “anti-abortion” judge to a federal judgeship “and another to stop ads for crisis pregnancy centers from appearing on Yahoo and Google when people search for local abortion clinics.”

Is it just me, or is that very, very slim pickings? Setting up a roadblock to one federal judge and continuing a campaign to bully under-funded crisis pregnancy centers into submission?

Of course having children–or, to be more specific–choosing not to kill her unborn children has only made Hogue more committed than ever to the right of all women to abort all children, as singletons or twins.

To those who marvel at the schizophrenia on display, Hogue shoots back defiantly, “What don’t you get about choice meaning choice?”

You really don’t know?

Categories: Media Bias