Thursday, April 28, 2005


SAEN Editorializes Another News Story

On the front page of today's SAEN is a story headlined "House OKs bill aimed at abortions." The story is available online, but the headline there is "House OKs bill toughening abortion consent." The bill simply requires that parents be notified when their child is going to have an abortion. Here is how the bill is described:
After an easy House victory, the latest push to curb abortions moves to the Senate where Republican gains increase the likelihood of making it harder for minors to cross state lines to end pregnancies without telling a parent[emphasis mine].

I just love the part that says "...latest push to curb abortions..." How is that for unbiased reporting? The bill that was passed has exemptions for when the procedure would save the life of the mother, when a judge has signed off on the procedure, and when the minor has been the victim of sexual abuse by a parent, so what are abortion advocates complaining about? It gets better. The online story reports that four bills "aimed at reducing the number of abortions" have been passed while Bush is in office (oh the horror!). Here is an example of one of those bills:
Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

Huh? The paper edition simply mentions this bill without giving a reason why, as if everyone automatically agrees with the liberal view that this bill was somehow secretly aimed at curbing abortions. Let me get this straight, Congress passes a law making it a crime to harm an unborn baby during an assault and it was really a stealth attack on abortion rights? All of these assertions being made in this news story rightfully belong on the op/ed pages, not on the front page.

It looks like Best of the Web agrees with me:

"The House passed a bill Wednesday that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions, the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections," reports the Associated Press.

"Chip away at abortion rights"? That's editorializing, isn't it? Since a pregnant minor is, by definition, a victim of statutory rape, one could just as easily characterize this as an effort to prevent the destruction of criminal evidence.

Then there's this, from another AP dispatch on the same subject:

Four bills aimed at reducing the number of abortion [sic] have been enacted since Bush won the White House in 2001:

Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. . . .

So according to the AP, assaulting a pregnant woman and harming her "fetus" constitutes abortion. Do "pro-choice" advocates want to keep violence against pregnant women safe and legal?
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?