ABC News Accused of Biased Coverage of Abortion, Pro-Life March

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A media watchdog group is accusing ABC News of biased coverage about abortion and the March for Life, where more than 100,000 people gathered to mourn the Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortion.

While ABC on Thursday night gave a few seconds of air time to Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark's clarification of his position in favor of abortion, it blacked out any coverage of the March for Life.

Instead, ABC's web site featured two articles with a decidedly pro-abortion viewpoint, notes Jessica Anderson of the Media Research Center.

"'Christian Terrorists': Anti-Abortionist Calls for Violence, Says It Is Religious Duty," proclaimed one headline on the ABC web site while "A Global Abortion War" was the other.

"For the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, ABC News chose to cast the pro-life movement in the most negative slant it could scrounge up on its Web site, and completely ignore it all together on the air the night before, morning of and day of, the annual March for Life," said MRC's Anderson.

The article on abortion-related violence "highlighted the bizarre rantings of Chuck Spingola on the Army of God Web site and the few people on the farthest fringe of the pro-life movement," Anderson explained.

ABC reporter Dean Schabner opened his piece: "An anti-abortion activist, calling for a new wave of violence against clinics and doctors, is following the example of violent Islamic fundamentalists, telling those who share his views to become 'Christian terrorists' and promising them a reward in Heaven."

Schabner quoted Mark Potok of the pro-abortion Southern Poverty Law Center, who claimed, "The hard-liners have become more and more hard-line, and I think they've lost most of their appeal even with the Christian right, which might share some of their views."

Anderson retorted, "As if Spingola and any of the handful of nutcases supporting violence against abortion providers bear any relation to mainstream pro-lifers."

Anderson points out contradictory statements by ABC's Schabner in an attempt to paint pro-life advocates as supporters of violence and, at the same time, acknowledge that abortion-related violence is on the decline.

Schabner writes that "extreme violence against abortion providers has dropped sharply over the last two years," but later says "there has been no decline in the harassment of doctors and staff at clinics and women visiting clinics."

Meanwhile, the second biased ABC News web site story on abortion took President Bush to task for his Mexico City Policy, which disallows taxpayer funding of groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries.

The story featured a photo of an unidentified African woman with the caption which conveyed the flavor of the story: "A U.S. rule on family planning aid is adversely affecting women across Africa and Asia, some health professionals say."

"Those 'health professionals' turn out to be from pro-abortion groups such as the Margaret Sanger Center International at Planned Parenthood of New York City and the Center for Reproductive Rights," Anderson explained.

ABC News reporter Leela Jacinto, in the article, writes, "It was a decision Nirmal Bista never really wanted to make: a choice between money and principles, shutting up or sticking it out, and most harrowingly, one that involved the lives -- and potential deaths -- of millions of his countrywomen."

Anderson said the piece leaves readers thinking Bush's pro-life policies are to blame for women dying from abortions around the world.

Awesome pics, thanks for the ping NYer!

I'm trying to formulate a response to ABC about their lack of coverage....on anything that even hints of conservative values and beliefs.

Just look at all the FReeps across the country in the last few years. How much coverage do we get from the alphabet networks? Nada. Zilch. Anyone see any coverage of the "National Day of Repudiation of Jesse Jackson" protest last Monday? Several FReepers attended; RonDog, AlohaRonnie, and Abigail2, just to name a few. I've attended maybe 3 rallies, mostly dealing with getting rid of Gray Davis, and I didn't see anything on TV. The DC chapter is very active, and do you see anything on regular tv? Nope.

These network news shows make Goebbels and Stalin proud. Fair and balanced my rear end.

another action alert is for FReepers to understand the importance of the Supreme Court. The justices are getting OLD. The Senate is very important, and getting Bush reelected is more important.

Here's a letter I sent W last year.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

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.