NRL News

Pro-abortionists wash, rinse, repeat same tired laments about insufficiently PC treatment of abortion on television and in the movies

by | Dec 29, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

Steph Herold, while hardly a household name, is one readers of NRL News Today may well recall. Over the years we’ve written about her pro-abortion agitprop on several occasions (here, here, here and here, for example).

Herold brings new meaning to the idiom “verbal gymnastics.” By that  I do not mean simply that there is nothing the Abortion Industry can do that would ever/could ever even raise an eyebrow, and nothing you and I do that isn’t awful times ten. That’s par for the abortion apologist’s course. 

Rather it is her amazing ability to compartmentalize and to rob words of their meaning that is genuinely astounding.

My “favorite” was the time she announced it was unacceptable to call repeat abortions, repeat abortions.


Women have “multiple abortions,” not repeat abortions, Herold instructed us. As I summarized her argument, there are no repeat abortions,  “only a series of discreet, separate, don’t-connect-the-dots abortions that are multiples of one.” 

Now, Herold appears to have landed her dream job. At her twitter account, we learn she is a “Researcher studying abortion on TV & film” at the “Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH).”

The results of her latest “research” were reposted at Yahoo News under the headline, “In 2020, TV and film still couldn’t get abortion right.”

Calvin Freiburger wrote the following in 2015:

Now, ANSIRH is back with another dire warning about abortion’s portrayal in media. This time, the problem is that TV characters who sought abortions between 2005 and 2014 were disproportionately white, young, and affluent, which threatens to give audiences unfair and unrealistic impressions of both the women who abort and why they choose to do so…

That particular study was authored by Gretchen Sisson and Katrina Kimport. Sisson, as it happens, is Herold’s co-author in the study, the results of which were reposted at Yahoo News.

So what, you ask? This is almost word for word what Herold and Sisson found five years later.

To which they would doubtless respond, Aha! See, nothing has changed!

In fact, as the analysis–which first appeared in The Conversation—reveals, a lot has changed. But if I gave examples of the changes, I would be accused of caricaturing their argument, even though it would be their examples. They are, shall we say, not exactly the experiences of everyday Americans.

But the larger point is the Abortion Industry—and ANSIRH is both deeply embedded and a big-time apologist—want every program that touches on abortion to be a PSA for the “safety” of abortion bundled with a lament that those deplorables keep passing laws in state legislatures that impinge on the Abortion Industry’s money-making endeavors.

Just as there will never be enough abortions for the likes of Herold and ANSIRH, so, too, there will never be a sufficient flood of movies celebrating the slaughter of unborn children.

Categories: pro-abortion