NRL News

Physicians for Reproductive Health calls on media to censor pro-life voices

by | Aug 16, 2022

By Dave Andrusko

There is cancel culture and there is CANCEL CULTURE.  Generally, but not exclusively, the former is censoring individuals. The latter’s target is an entire category of people whose very existence they find offensive and whose voice must be stifled.

Which brings us to a call (from a pro-abortion group, of course) to end “both sides” coverage. The headline for the piece “Abortion Providers Would Like You to Please Stop Interviewing Anti-Abortion Propagandists” and Caitlin Cruz, writing for Jezebel, picks up on the letter from Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH).

Nothing like a good battle of ideas, right? Well, no, actually. PRH wants pro-lifers excluded en masse and they are not the least bit shy about their reasons. From the letter addressed to “reporters, journalists, editorial teams, and producers”(AKA the media):

We are writing today with a big request: stop giving air-time to anti-abortion activists. As the undersigned over 600 providers of abortion care, people who have had abortions and will have abortions, abortion advocates, and individuals who work with the media regularly, we could not be more concerned for the safety and well-being of our communities, in part because of the misinformation, disinformation, and inflammatory threats shared and encouraged by anti-abortion activists in the media.

We know your reporting standards are to cover “both sides” of any debate. Allow us to be clear: Medicine and science are not up for debate. Health care is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. And the fact is, abortion is not in the realm of theory or belief. Abortion belongs in health care, social services, and public health reporting.

With this in mind, we are asking for a commitment from the community of media outlets reporting on abortion to keep in mind the true danger that you present when interviewing anti-abortion extremists.

So, to be clear, abortion is, for PRH, “health care” and should be seen as belonging “in health care, social services, and public health reporting.” And criticism of the Abortion Media Complex is not only out of bounds, it’s dangerous.

To wit, “You are giving the opportunity for dangerous lies to spread. You are, by way of asking them questions, legitimizing their answers.”

Think about that last sentence for a moment. Even asking questions is ill-advised because that “legitimizes” our answers.

The letter ends with “The way we talk about abortion matters.”(It does!) “We are offering up our time and expertise to editorial boards, producers, researchers, and reporters for closed-room discussions on how to better your editorial and coverage strategies in service of communities.”

Mighty charitable of them, wouldn’t you say? Strategizing in private to present the abortion industry’s point of view exclusively which is, of course, grounded in “science.”

The irony is hard to miss.

For umpteen years, every time a pro-life administration said that federal family planning dollars should not used for abortion (or counseling or referring for abortion), the abortion industry would scream they were being “gagged.” 

We’re not talking here about federal money. We’re talking about something far more dangerous.

PRH wants our voice throttled and expects “reporters, journalists, editorial teams, and producers” to dutifully take their marching orders from pro-abortion “experts.”

The abortion industry already has the overwhelming majority of media outlets in their pockets. They can’t have all of them so the next best thing is for the media to censor pro-life voices.

Categories: pro-abortion