Posted on 07/05/2013 2:12:24 PM PDT by NYer
Washington, DC (LiveActionNews) – A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”
The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media.
The ad features a hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote, “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak Up.”
Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.
“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”
The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.
“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.
Last week after the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Heroic Media put out a statement requesting that the pro-life community contact their senators and encourage them to consider and support the Act.
“Americans deserve to know the truth about the children sentenced to die for no fault of their own and that we have a chance to spare some of them through this legislation,” Young said.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prevents an abortionist from performing an abortion at or after 20 weeks, based on empirical scientific medical evidence that proves that unborn babies can feel pain. Science shows that at eight weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch, and at 20 weeks, the unborn baby responds to what would be felt as pain.
The image shows a 20- to 24-week-old baby in a person’s hands. Heroic Media’s goal was to show what life looks like at 20 weeks. The non-profit organization has resubmitted the ad with a different image, now one of a 20-week-old baby in utero.
The Chicago Tribune has now agreed to run the ad with the second image as long as Heroic Media indicates that it is an advertisement.
“Our hope is that the American public begins to advance this debate with both the mother and child in mind,” Young said.
Heroic Media is a non-profit whose mission is to educate the public in general and reach women facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives through the use of mass media, such as television commercials, internet outreach, and billboards.
“This issue, the late-term killing of developing children, is one that should be addressed in the U.S. Senate, and we encourage our fellow citizens to let their Senators know our desire to see that happen,” Young said.
while this image
is too controversial.
Got it. 
Throw up! Throw up! Ewwwwwwwww.wwwwww...My eyes...did they really pick those two men kissing to publish? Yulk!
X-rated stuff now at the news stands!
I appreciate your good intentions here but many women do not pay attention to this information. They are caught up in the "heat of the moment". To cite an example, while filling out forms at an ob/gyn office, I could not help but overhear the "test result" phone calls being made to patients, by one of the staffers. The first caller was told she had an STD that could be treated but not cured. Apparently the patient was confused by the acronym. The staffer explained that STD meant she had a sexually transmitted disease. The caller was now upset and wanted to know how she contracted it! The staffer not only explained the process but also advised her to contact every partner with whom she had sexual relations because they also needed to be tested.
Meanwhile, here in upstate NY, after 10 pm, Trojan is advertising special lotions to "enhance the experience". These ads, IMO, should come with disclaimers advising consumers of the ramifications, like STDs.
“This one” was a baby with spina bifida, whose spinal defect was repaired in utero. He was born healthy, with fewer side effects than he otherwise might have had. He can be found on YouTube, living life.
Our grandson’s spina bifida was not detected before birth. His nurses thought it was a shame his disorder was not apparent in prenatal testing, so his parents could have chosen to abort him. Nice. He’s a beautiful, happy boy of five, with some related mobility and health issues, none of which are a capital crime.
yup, that baby had no voice but one was provided for it... God Bless
By my observations, this cannot be true. Most women who get abortions are not deliberately pregnant; they are deliberately cooperating in baby-making acts by their husbands or boyfriends (having live sperm injected into their genital tracts) but not intentionally getting pregnant.
That's the disconnect. That's why contraception triggers more abortions than it prevents. Contraception has two effects: the pharmaceutical one, and the psychological-behavioral one. The pharmaceutical one reduces the likelihood that any individual act of intercourse will result im pregnancy. The psychological-behavioral one vastly increases risk-taking by both males and females, by creating a cognitive disconnect between sex and fertility.
The second effect overwhelms the first effect.
Thus contraceptives increase unwanted pregnancies. This can be verified by the fact that whenever a new group of emales become contraceptive acceptors, their unwanted pregnancy rate, nonmarital childbearing rate, and abortion rate goes up -- not down.
and none dare call it murder
it is aimply a fact of nature that a pregnant women has in her responsibility not just her own life but the life of another living human being - in need of more development yes, but a living human being none the less
Excellent!
Yet another reason to keep not buying the Trib.
if it was a dog and you killed it
wow you would be in trouble
Wow! I think I saw it in the AJC! I guess it didn’t get the “boycott” notice.
Excellent. Hadn’t seen that before. Thanks for posting.
My question: What exactly do they find “disturbing” about the ad? Is there something “gruesome” about it? Major papers print plenty of disturbing images on a regular basis, but this normal-looking picture they reject.
Thanks NYer.
The boy, Samuel Armas, 13, inspires us still.
2 Kings 17:17
17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, provoking him to anger
NIV
Ps 106:38-39
38 They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
39 They defiled themselves by what they did; by their deeds they prostituted themselves.
NIV
Ezek 16:2020 "'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols.
Deut 32:17-23
17 They sacrificed to demons, which are not God — gods they had not known,gods that recently appeared,gods your fathers did not fear. 18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;you forgot the God who gave you birth.
19 The Lord saw this and rejected thembecause he was angered by his sons and daughters. 20 "I will hide my face from them," he said,"and see what their end will be;for they are a perverse generation,children who are unfaithful. 21 They made me jealous by what is no godand angered me with their worthless idols.I will make them envious by those who are not a people;I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding. 22 For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,one that burns to the realm of death below.It will devour the earth and its harvestsand set afire the foundations of the mountains.
23 "I will heap calamities upon them and spend my arrows against them..."
NIV
Same Ol'
Re-write the ad, pointing out that the publisher and editor-in-chief of the Tribune have systematically censored publication of the science on the abortion issue, violating their pledge to inform the public.....
....and then distribute copies by hand, urging people to cancel their subscriptions.
It has to do with their format. Their Liberal format. Anything that goes against it is not worthy of a story or picture. That’s why I go to the foreign press to see what’s happening in the US.
Yet baby pics of Trayvon Martin are plastered all over the news...
It’s really simple.
The baby should be black.
They don’t care if a white baby gets dismembered. That’s “just retribution” in their minds.
But violate the Civil Rights of a future African American?
That’s a heinous crime.
Could shut down the abortion murder industry overnight.
I have never encountered anyone who had an abortion because a contraceptive failed. I have, however, known of plenty who had abortions who didn't bother using contraceptives. I've personally heard statements to the effect of "Oh, I don't have to worry about birth control, since I can always just get an abortion." I've had men tell me that girls they were dating told them the same thing; I've read it in articles by those who are "pro-choice" (who, unsurprisingly, had at least one abortion).
The only place I ever saw that featured women claiming to have had abortions because of contraceptive failure was an article in Health magazine several years ago, where they featured a few women in this category. Unfortunately, the article's definition of contraceptive use was extremely generous. The only other source I've seen that contraceptive failure is a major contributor to abortion is the Guttmacher institute; given that it's a branch of Planned Parenthood, its claim is highly suspect.
There is nothing stopping any abortion client from claiming she was using contraceptives when she is asked about it; that is probably the biggest factor in the supposed high failure rate. Listen to someone explaining why she had an abortion, but without prompting her by asking about contraceptive use: in this situation, women do not volunteer that their contraceptives failed--in other words, they weren't using any.
It plays into the abortion industry's hands to accept their claims that a large fraction of their clients had their contraceptives fail. There isn't a lot of corroborating evidence, however. For one thing, if contraceptive failure was a major cause of abortion, you would expect the abortion rate to be the same across the board: there would be no difference between races, and the rate would decline with age in conjunction with fertility loss. However, neither of these patterns are seen: the differences in abortion rates between different races are drastic, and the majority of abortion clients are young teens. This tells me that irresponsibility is the major driver of abortion.
There are other pieces of evidence, as well. However, I have already written enough!
Well, except for one little thing: I have known of three women who did get pregnant despite contraceptive use. All three put their babies up for adoption. I do believe that one's views on abortion are the major factor driving whether one will endeavor to use contraceptives correctly, or will use them incorrectly--if they bother even using them at all.
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.