Posted on 12/02/2003 2:18:22 PM PST by nickcarraway
Boston, MA (LifeNews.com) -- The Boston Globe is being accused again of bias against pro-life advocates, this time about a letter to the editor.
The newspaper recently ran a letter to the editor from Massachusetts Citizens for Life regarding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. But the letter was run only after an intensive five-week lobbying campaign by pro-life leaders.
According to Nathan Nascimento, field director for Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the letter was originally sent to The Globe on October 15, but was not published until more than a month later.
The letter was written in response to the first of what became numerous letters denouncing the partial-birth abortion ban from pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
Nascimento says that it took more than a dozen phone calls to get the pro-life letter published.
In the end, The Globe's publisher, Richard Gilman, assured Massachusetts Citizens for Life that he would like to be made aware of any perceived bias in future articles or op-ed pieces.
"Massachusetts Citizens For Life is the state's largest pro-life organization and the state affiliate of National Right to Life," said the group's spokesman, Darby Duffin. "As such, one would think that The Boston Globe would consistently seek out our position when reporting on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc."
"However, we have frequently had an uphill battle with The Globe obtaining equal or fair coverage," Duffin said.
Claims of pro-abortion bias are nothing new at The Boston Globe.
In July, the newspaper was called to task for an article which erroneously reported that the U.S. House had voted to outlaw embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the House never took such a vote. Embryonic stem cell research is legal, although the House did vote in February to ban the creation of human embryos through cloning.
"The House-passed bill would have no effect on research using non-cloned human embryos," Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life told LifeNews.com at the time.
Likewise, in March, The Globe mistakenly reported that partial-birth abortions were used in the 20th to 26th week of pregnancy "because of fetal abnormalities or medical conditions threatening a woman."
However, Martin Haskell, the Ohio abortionist who popularized partial-birth abortion, has conceded that the vast majority of such abortions are performed on the healthy babies of healthy mothers.
As a result of that error, Christine Chinlund, the Globe's ombudsman, wrote that new guidelines had been adopted at the paper.
"The Globe would not say or imply that the procedure known as partial birth abortion is used only when medically necessary -- thus recognizing that [it] is also used by healthy women who carry a healthy fetus," Chinlund wrote.
The ombudsman for The Globe did not respond to LifeNews.com's request for comment concerning the latest charges of pro-abortion bias at the newspaper.
However, The Globe is hardly alone in its biased coverage on partial-birth abortion. Mistakes in newspaper coverage of the issue have been so numerous that National Right to Life issued a detailed memo on misconceptions about the partial-birth abortion ban.
A number of the nation's leading newspapers have adopted a pro-abortion editorial stance. Research also indicates that a vast majority of national journalists identify themselves as "pro-choice" on abortion.
But while concerns about biased reporting may be commonplace, secular newspapers and television stations provide much of the information Americans receive about abortion. Therefore, pro-life leaders say it is absolutely critical that readers call their local papers to task when evidence of bias surfaces.
While Massachusetts Citizens for Life is hopeful that the Boston Globe will become more responsible in its coverage, Duffin notes that the paper's credibility has suffered as a result of its pro-abortion bias.
"They have disenfranchised a great many of their readers and its reputation as one of the nation's finest newspapers has suffered. The Globe has a long way to go in re-establishing its journalistic credibility as that of a fair and balanced news organization," Duffin said.
He should subscribe to the paper?????
The good news is that they are having financial problems, and are carrying out a big advertising campaign to help pick up subscriptions. Apparently, all their anti-Catholic spewing has angered the many Catholics who used to read their rag.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
"Times". The Boston Times.
You know, "All the news that's created to fit".
The presumption here is that these were mistakes. Not likely: they were deliberate. The Globe is the ugly stepchild of the NYTimes.
On a similar note, the Massachusetts Daily Collegian, the paper of the UMASS college system, had an article about partial birth abortion. The column is a recurring one, allegedly educational, under the title "Sex-iversity." Their article on the partial birth abortion ban was one sided, written by a local representative of Planned Parenthood, who proceeded to launch into the following informercial for Planned Parenthood (from the Nov. 19, 2003 issue, http://www.dailycollegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/11/19/3fbaede0c7fe4?in_archive=1):
some background on the PBA ban
by julia kristan
November 19, 2003
Sex-iversity is a question and answer column designed to provide important information and answers to questions regarding sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, sexually transmitted infections and reproductive rights. Voiced by Julia Kristan, a member of Voices for Planned Parenthood branch at the University of Massachusetts and an active volunteer for the Everywoman's Center on campus, the column is intended to help educate the university community about reproductive health, rights, legislation and responsibilities. Much of the statistical information provided in this column derives from research done through and obtained by Planned Parenthood and its national affiliates.
Q. What did the Partial Birth Abortion Ban signed into law recently do?
A. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, signed into law on Nov. 5 of this year, prohibits the medical practice of dilation and extraction. Bear in mind the term "partial birth abortion" itself is not a legitimate name of the medical procedure. The medical term is "intact dilation and extraction." The procedure is rarely used, and quite a difficult choice to make if one's health is in danger. This procedure is used primarily in the third trimester of pregnancy if and when a woman's life is in danger or in other cases when the fetus is dead. While the language of the legal document maintains, "a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman," many other sources, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, give information that there are cases where the procedure is necessary.
While the dilation and extraction procedure is rarely used (it was used in less than 2 percent of abortions in 2000), it has created a tidal wave of activity and debate over women's rights, the right to life, and Roe v. Wade. Thirty years ago, abortions were deemed legal under Roe. v. Wade, giving women another option for their health and well being regarding childbearing. This act is an attack on the foundation of the Constitutional right to choose certain medical treatment. It has no health exception to protect women. Period. Not in rape, not in incest, not when the woman's life is at risk.
Dilation and extraction is undoubtedly a tremendously difficult and possibly traumatic experience to go through, one, which I believe no woman, would ever opt to have. When a woman does need such a medical procedure, it is after much thought and consideration of the risks, and for a serious reason. This law seems to have put no thought and consideration to the health of women in the situations requiring a dilation and extraction. This law infringes on women's right to privacy, as well as interfering in patient-doctor relationships. It takes away an option for doctors to treat patients. It essentially ignores the knowledge of the doctor and the needs of the patient, with no exception.
This law erodes the right to privacy and the right to medical treatment. It's a foot in the door for law to take away more women's health rights. The ban criminalizes a recognized medical procedure. Roe v. Wade, oddly enough, already outlaws abortions in the third trimester except to save the life or health of the woman. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a broad and vague document which could possibly be used to criminalize legal second trimester abortions. Its inflammatory language and lack of Constitutionality, however, may lead to it being struck down. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Feminist Majority and other organizations have mobilized and begun the legal fight against the law.
If you are interested in taking action, contact VOX here on campus at the email address listed below. There are weekly meetings open to the public to discuss issues and take action. We will be attending the April 25 March for Freedom of Choice on Washington, D.C. There will be transportation provided through the area Planned Parenthood group.
On the Net: www.plannedparenthood.org
Questions? Comments? E-mail sexiversity@hotmail.com. Confidentially is respected.
To which I responded (under a pseudonym of course):
"Some" background is right!
Now how about the "rest of the story" (to quote Paul Harvey).
The term "partial birth abortion" is as, if not more, descriptive of the actual procedure than the technically sanitized "dilation and extraction." Sounds like an oil change on a car, no?
Ms. Kristan leaves out a lot of facts in her pursuit of so called "abortion rights." To wit: Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, elected to come clean and admit that, contrary to the "party line" assertions of most abortion advocates (himself included), partial-birth abortions were actually performed several thousand times a year (perhaps 6,000 to 7,000), mostly on healthy mothers with healthy babies. In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial birth abortions were performed on babies declared "viable," and in each case the reason cited was the mental, not physical health of the mother. Other investigations revealed that the reasons women sought these second trimester abortions were quite similar to the reasons women chose abortion in the first trimester. To me, this blows the lid off of Ms. Kristan's arguments, rendering them, to put it kindly, untrue.
I wonder how Ms. Kristan reconciles the testimony of Mr. Fitzsimmons with her stated belief that no woman would ever opt to have this procedure if there were another way.
Her claim that "This law seems to have put no thought and consideration to the health of women in the situations requiring a dilation and extraction" are provably incorrect: The bill would permit use of the procedure if “necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.” Kristan brushes with the truth saying "This law infringes on women's right to privacy, as well as interfering in patient-doctor relationships. It takes away an option for doctors to treat patients," but loses it completely by ignoring the truth and saying "It essentially ignores the knowledge of the doctor and the needs of the patient, with no exception." Shameful.
Ms. Kristan further states that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)"many other sources, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, give information that there are cases where the procedure is necessary." Actually, their statements do not do this. To wit (from their own webpage http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm): "The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision." The real issue for them is their objection to the precedent set by legislators taking options away from doctors, not the procedure itself. It is the same with the AMA, who actually supported the partial birth abortion ban in 1997, but objected on the basis of the same issue. Can anyone point out where the ACOG says that partial birth abortion is "necessary?" Neither can I.
I invite any interested individuals to read the testimony of Douglas Johnson Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 929, S. 6] at a Joint Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and The Constitution Subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, on March 11, 1997. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/test.html) for the rest of the story. There are plenty of references to support his statements.
In interview with American Medical News, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says partial-birth abortion is never a medical necessity for the mother (Aug. 19, 1996). A Democratic, liberal Surgeon General must know something? Think about it: what medical condition could a woman have that could ONLY be dealt with by partially birthing a child, stopping when the child is still *legally* unborn, killing it by sucking out the brain, and then delivering it the rest of the way, sometimes in pieces. Nobody has answered that question as yet. Maybe Ms. Kristan can.
It would be nice if "Sex-versity" gave the whole story rather than just one side of the argument. This is an intellectually dishonest presentation. An informed choice requires ALL the information, not just one side. Reproductive choices should be made BEFORE the reproduction.
It should be noted that the letters to the editor are never printed in the paper, where most people would see it. Anyone wonder why UMASS college students are abortion enthusiasts, as I like to call them?
And in other standing headlines...
Sun Rises in the East; Women and Minorities most affected.
Michael Jackson accused of Pederatsry; Women and Minorities most affected.
DemonRATs Complain "Tax Cuts For the Wealthy"; Women and Minorities most affected.
Women and Minorities Complain "Women and Minorities most affected."
Where LIEberals are concerned, I sense a pattern!
The KC Star is almost as bad. They print 15 liberal letters to every one conservative letter, and they always attempt to choose the least articulate writer to publish. (Of course, the least articulate conservative generally writes a more coherent, fact-based letter than the most articulate liberal.)
Bias seen is abortion story [excerpt] By Christina Kalb Cambridge, 02/01/98
In response to Dolores Kong's Jan. 19 Metro article, ''Anniversary of landmark Roe v. Wade is marked'':From a journalist's point of view, I can see that telling the story of abortion through the eyes of the still-active attorney Sarah Weddington would be appealing. However, it shows immediately the pro-choice bias of the author, a bias that becomes only more evident as the article progresses.
[snip] This article suggests that there is nothing harmful or wrong about abortion and wonders, along with Sarah Weddington, why the issue is still debated without providing any reason why from the opposing side.
Wow, if ever there was a "Dog Bites Man" headline on FR, that's gotta be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.