Newt Gingrich Reminds America That the Media Covered for Barack Obama’s Baby Killing Past

Each presidential candidate had his ups and downs in last night’s CNN Republican debate, but former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had the evening’s most memorable moment. Moderator John King posed the following question:

Since “birth control” is the latest hot topic, which candidates believe in birth control and if not, why?

The audience’s raucous booing made clear they weren’t interested in the press’s latest talking point, and neither was Gingrich. He turned the tables beautifully:

I want to make two quick points, John. The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. That’s legitimate. But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. Read more Newt Gingrich Reminds America That the Media Covered for Barack Obama’s Baby Killing Past

Obama Cites Faulty Pro-Choice Study in Birth Control Debate

If you’ve been paying attention at all to the Contraception Mandate debacle, you have mostly likely heard a liberal politician, pro-choice advocate, or TV talking head, say that the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control is hypocritical because “98% of Catholic women use contraception.”  However, the study they are citing has some serious bias and methodology flaws.

The first problem is that the study was conducted by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which is closely associated with Planned Parenthood and NARAL.  It seems to defy logic that such a biased source would produce results that could be taken seriously.  This bias turns into an even bigger problem when we look at the methodology used in the study.

When you do a poll, the idea is to get a number of responses that will accurately represent the certain sector of society that you wish to study–whether that be a sector based on religion, ideology, socio-economic status, or political party.  The whole point of a poll is to show an accurate picture, but if you choose to limit certain factors, you can seriously bias your results.

Read more Obama Cites Faulty Pro-Choice Study in Birth Control Debate

Michelle Goldberg’s Lame, Arrogant Excuses for the Obama Birth Control Mandate

Hot off the heels of trashing Lila Rose, Newsweek’s Michelle Goldberg jumps into the ObamaCare-contraception fray with a Daily Beast column arguing that forcing Catholic institutions to offer birth control is no big deal. Unfortunately for the Obama Administration, however, her apologia is a train wreck of distortions and non sequiturs:

But many Catholic institutions are already operating in states that require contraceptive coverage, such as New York and California. Such laws are on the books in 28 states, and only eight of them exempt Catholic hospitals and universities. Nowhere has the Catholic Church shut down in response.  Read more Michelle Goldberg’s Lame, Arrogant Excuses for the Obama Birth Control Mandate

The American Media: Anything But Equal

The most convenient way to ignore a certain view is to pretend that the people who hold it don’t exist.  The next easiest way is to demonize the people who hold the view and portray them as so far from normal it’s not even funny.  The American media as a whole enjoys treating the pro-life view in this way.

Granted, a few good articles have been written about the pro-life issue or those who work on it.  Occasionally, a reporter will give a balanced—or even  a positive—review of the pro-life position.  But this is the exception, my friends, and not the rule.

One of the best examples highlighting the media bias against pro-lifers was recently written by New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, Ross Douthat.  In “The Media’s Abortion Blinders,” Mr. Douthat critiques the media’s blatantly unfair coverage of the Planned Parenthood/Komen fiasco that just unfolded.  

Mr. Douthat refers to the “wave of frankly brutal coverage” and provides several examples.  Media sources who should be unbiased (you know, simply report the facts without inserting opinions) have most certainly not covered this situation with any sort of equity.  All pro-lifers ask for is equality; balance; fairness; an accurate assessment of the facts.  As we all know, there are plenty of activists on both sides of the issue who are more than willing to offer their opinions.  That is NOT the job of a news reporter.

Read more The American Media: Anything But Equal

Newsweek & Michelle Goldberg Distort the Truth

NewsweekToday Newsweek senior contributing writer Michelle Goldberg presented a less-than-truthful piece on Live Action’s President Lila Rose. This of course isn’t the first time I’ve seen right-to-life opponents engage in a cherry-picking exercise to distort the record of pro-life advocates nor do I expect it to be the last.

First a bit of history on Newsweek before commencing with the fact-check. Newsweek was owned since 1961 by the Washington Post which has been and continues to be outspoken in favor of abortion. As the circulation of Newsweek fell, the Washington Post sold the magazine to Sidney Harman in 2010. Sidney Harman passed away in 2011 leaving much of the publication’s ownership to his wife Jane Harman who is a former Democratic congresswoman from California. Harman strongly supported abortion while in office including opposing a ban on the termination of human fetuses that were alive and partially born. Jane Harman now sits on the Newsweek board.

Now back to Michelle Goldberg and her piece titled, “Lila Rose: The Woman Who Sparked the Planned Parenthood Flap.” The problems with this editorial curve-ball come one after another and range from slights to major omissions.

Read more Newsweek & Michelle Goldberg Distort the Truth

Washington Post Admits “An Incomplete Picture of the March for Life”

In response the criticism of the paper’s coverage of the March for Life, the Washington Post’s ombudsman has written an article entitled An Incomplete Picture of the March for Life. The article answers some of the criticisms that were sent in response to a poor coverage of the March for Life, and admits that the photo gallery of the march was “where The Post fell down in its coverage of the march this year”.

The online photo gallery contains 10 photos: seven tight shots of antiabortion demonstrators, two of protesters from the small abortion-rights counter-demonstration on the steps of the Supreme Court and one that showed both sides confronting each other there. In fact, eight of the 10 shots were taken at the high court.

Emotional shots make better photos, yes, but I would have chosen more from the broad expanse of the rally, and at least one photo showing a lot of cheerful, festive people, which is what I see at most demonstrations that I have covered over the years, regardless of the issue at hand.

Since all of the photos were tight shots,they were unable to show the actual scale of the event.

CBS has also responded to criticism of their coverage of the March, and posted photos of the event.

New York Daily News “Cherry Picks” its Own Facts on Tim Tebow

The media just can’t stand it when a pro-lifer is popular.  While Tim Tebow was voted the most popular athlete in the nation by an ESPN poll and named #10 on the Forbes Most Influential Athletes List, all the New York Daily News can talk about is how Tim Tebow has received “widespread criticism.”  Here’s what they have to say in a new article where they discuss the pro-life ad aired by Focus on the Family with Tim and Pam Tebow in 2010:

Tebow, who is well known for his staunch religious beliefs, received widespread criticism after he appeared in the 2010 spot. The second-year quarterback, who is the son of an evangelical preacher, discussed in that commercial how his mother was told to have an abortion when she was pregnant with him.

The commercial comes at the tail end of a season where Tebow’s religious beliefs have been often discussed – and mocked – by Jimmy Fallon, Bill Maher and “Saturday Night Live.”

What a lovely invention of facts, inaccuracies, exaggerations, and cherry-picking.  First, if you’ve seen the 2010 commercial, it’s pretty inaccurate to say that Tim Tebow “discussed” anything in it.  His mom told a little bit of their story (though if you didn’t know the facts, you wouldn’t even know doctors recommended that she abort Tim), and Tim came in and tackled her.  If the New York Daily News wants to call a tackle a discussion, I guess a lot more hard discussions go on during football games than I thought.

Read more New York Daily News “Cherry Picks” its Own Facts on Tim Tebow

CNN Fails Science Class With Medically Inaccurate “Fertilized Egg” Title

Today CNN wrote and article titled, “Mississippi gov. supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person.”

What is the problem with that?

Well there is no such thing as a fertilized human egg. Once a human egg is fertilized, it is no longer an egg but rather called a human zygote or human embryo.

According to the educational non-profit, Endowment for Human Development:

Pregnancy begins at conception with the union of a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg to form a single-cell embryo.

For more information about human development, check out their Prenatal Summary page.

FoxNews Uses Misleading, Anti-Science Headline Comparing Persons to Eggs

FoxNews typically does a better job than most mainstream media of portraying the abortion issue in a “fair and balanced” way.

But not this time.

FoxNews originally ran a story earlier today about the Mississippi Personhood Amendment with the headline:

“Push to Declare a Human Egg a ‘Person’ Offers New Tack on Abortion Debate”

FoxNews later changed the headline and switched “Human” for “Fertilized” in front of Egg.

Sadly, FoxNews has fallen into a trap the pro-abortion movement tries to use, claiming that pro-lifers believe a human egg is a person and that we want human eggs to receive legal protection. This is completely false, because pro-lifers actually know their biology and are proud to use science when making our case for protecting the dignity and right to life of the unborn.

Read more FoxNews Uses Misleading, Anti-Science Headline Comparing Persons to Eggs

David Frum’s Abortion Fantasy

Sometimes pro-abortion proponents are so blinded by ideology that they can’t see the obvious. Take David Frum. The CNN Contributor wrote a far-fetched article titled, What if abortion became a non-issue? He claimed that “incredible as it sounds now – there is reason to expect that the abortion issue may someday just vanish from national politics. After all, that’s what happened to the last great moral issue to rattle the American party system: alcohol prohibition.”

Sorry David, but that’s a logical fallacy. Abortion is a human rights issue. And while human rights issues are, by nature, also moral issues, the distinction is profound.

Read more David Frum’s Abortion Fantasy

Double Standard: Media Goes After Marriage Group, Ignores Planned Parenthood’s Government-Funded Political Activity

Last week the Associated Press breathlessly announced that federal grant money given to the Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) may have helped support –gasp– political activity to protect the definition of marriage in Iowa state law.

While unable to find any smoking gun or direct evidence that what the Iowa Family Policy Center did with its award money was illegal, the AP author Ryan Foley goes on to detail how the money was used to do things like pay for employee salaries, rent, telephone and internet expenses.

Read more Double Standard: Media Goes After Marriage Group, Ignores Planned Parenthood’s Government-Funded Political Activity

Abortion, Birth Control, and Medical Deception

Robin Marty at the pro-abortion blog RH Reality Check attacked pro-life advocates for refusing to accept the definition of pregnancy given by the “medical field.” She complained that “anti-choice activists” are fighting a “war against contraception.” (Presumably, this is part of the war against women.) But she conveniently failed to mention the reason pro-life advocates oppose allowing the “medical field” to provide this definition. So, I’ll explain.

Human Fertilization
Human Fertilization

In 1965, the medical definition for when pregnancy begins was changed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Why? Ideology.

Read more Abortion, Birth Control, and Medical Deception