What’s so controversial about a baby? When Heroic Media wanted to place an ad in major newspapers like USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune to argue for a ban on late-term abortions, they didn’t include any graphic photos of aborted babies, or what abortion mills like Planned Parenthood call “products of conception” or “POCs.” Instead, it just shows a child at roughly 20 weeks gestation resting in the hand of an adult, which gives readers some badly-needed context about late-term abortions.
No problem, right? After all, our media has no trouble selling ad space for lots of pictures of babies, asleep and awake, for products from diapers to car tires to on-line investment firms. Suddenly, though, a baby to sell the concept of protecting human life is too controversial, according to these newspapers (via Carol Platt Liebau):
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. …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.
No one here will argue that these outlets have a requirement to carry these ads. Their newspapers are their own property, and they should be allowed to choose freely on which advertisements they run. But we are also free to reach conclusions about their political bias based on those decisions, and it’s clear that these outlets don’t want a real debate on abortion, especially late-term abortion, based on facts. The argument that this photograph is somehow so controversial that it can’t be published in decent society is ridiculous immediately on viewing the ad. They’re not refusing it because it’s controversial — they’re refusing it because it’s effective.
Meanwhile, Scott Walker signed a bill in Wisconsin that duplicates the bill in Texas. You know, the one that’s so controversial that 62% of Texas voters support it:
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law on Friday new abortion restrictions that opponents said could lead to the closing of two of the state’s four abortion clinics.Opponents of the law, which goes into effect Monday, July 8, filed a federal lawsuit challenging it.The law requires women to undergo an ultrasound before they get an abortion and doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics.“This bill improves a woman’s ability to make an informed choice that will protect her physical and mental health now and in the future,” said Tom Evenson, a spokesman for the governor.According to Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services, which are the state’s two abortion providers, the law could prompt the closing of abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee because doctors there do not have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
If that’s a requirement for all other ambulatory surgical centers (it is in Texas, at least), then why should abortionists be exempt from it? Or do Planned Parenthood want to argue that women undergoing abortions should be less safe than anyone undergoing a Botox treatment or a tummy tuck?
This is more classic Alinski. In Rules For Radicals, he preached to never get bitter and dejected and to instead learn something and change your tactics. Most people don't want the graphic abortion pictures shoved in their face along with the screaming of damnation. This ad is the same message dressed up differently that might pull in a little more support. Likely, now that the ad has been rejected by some well known newspapers, the sponsors of the ad can claim victim status and possibly pull newspapers into a battle they don't want to fight. This is also classic Alinski.
ReplyDeleteIn Rules for Radicals, Alinski makes the point that winning IS the point and discussions of morality regarding tactics are meaningless. After the initial wave of Alinski baiting by conservatives, I started to see conservative websites here and there suggest it was time to adopt Alinski to meet their needs. I will concede one thing here, Republicans are winning this battle. In order to win, they are doing everything they preach is evil for Democrats to do, but the end justifies the means to them. Public opinion is NOT being shifted on this issue, but bit by bit, they are accomplishing their goal of de facto outlaw.
So, if something is effective you are going to credit Alinsky.. nice try but oh so wrong. This is a GREAT point. There is no blood or gore here just a reminder of "what" it is being killed.
DeleteThis ad is effective in a Charlie Sheen "Winning" kind of way. It's still propaganda. The "Pain Capable-Unborn Child Act?" That's pretty manipulative. If you read Rules for Radicals Angie, you might be surprised at recognizing how much the political landscape today is influenced by his tactics.
DeleteWithin the anti abortion crowd, there is a genuine passion for life that is not any different from the same passion felt by those on the left. What separates them from working together is dogma and fear.
Max,
DeleteUnless it was doctored, that is a picture of a 20-week old 'collection of cells', a phrase I've come across more than once, that is magically a 'child' when it is on the other side of the uterus, yes? Somehow, to at least some pro-abortionists, it's ok to destroy that collection of cells. To what part of that advertisement do you object, as it seems you do? It's a picture of a child. Is it because it graphically displays, for all to see, what that callously termed clooection of cells actually is? That calling it a 'fetus', or a 'thing', or any other term doesn't change what it actually is?
Jean
"To what part of that advertisement do you object, as it seems you do? It's a picture of a child. Is it because it graphically displays, for all to see, what that callously termed clooection of cells actually is?"
DeleteI really want to be a smart ass here, but I'm going to try and give a reasoned response. The rigid focus on whether it's a collection of cells or a fully feeling organism (albeit one that is not able to live on it's own below a certain level of development) is one of my chief annoyances with not only this ad, but with the discussions of abortion in general. Whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or not will be decided on much more complex thinking. THAT is what resonates with ME and I believe it is also what resonates with many who are slightly left or right of center.
The wording of the ad, and the question you ask, "Do I hate it because it punctures my safe and comfortable view that a fetus isn't real" is what I am annoyed with. It essentially says I'm not smart enough to understand what it means to abort a fetus and if I just saw it different, namely the way that all of you do, I would make the right decision to support the complete outlaw of abortion, which, BTW, is the real goal of conservatives and this ad. Those who oppose abortion are not seeking partial success, they want a complete ban.
The farther left and right types seem to be engaged in this epic struggle to find a perfect term for a pregnancy to manipulate others into taking their side. From the left is a desire to deemphasize a fetus into a collection cells while the right attempts to say a fetus is fully the equal of a child that has been born and can survive outside the womb. Both, IMO, are guilty of a similar fault, namely that neither really cares about a bigger picture view.
Lastly, the ad asks us to help stop the war on children. What a fucking joke. We talk a good game in this country about being for the family and for children. What we actually spend money on, however, suggests something entirely different.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMax, (sorry, I had to correct a typo)
Delete"Do I hate it because it punctures my safe and comfortable view that a fetus isn't real" is what I am annoyed with. It essentially says I'm not smart enough to understand what it means to abort a fetus and if I just saw it different, namely the way that all of you do, I would make the right decision to support the complete outlaw of abortion, which, BTW, is the real goal of conservatives"
Max, first, that wasn't the question I asked. Second, it wasn't my intent to annoy you. Third, it was my intent to simply point out that but for a few inches on the inside or outside of the womb, aborting woud be termed murder. It speaks to the issue avoided, I think, by SCOTUS, and that is "When does a 'life' begin/when is that 'life' a human being?" The 'feeling pain' thing is rather irrelevant to me. Just so you know, my view on a reasonable compromise between beliefs of the beginning of a human being and pro-abortionists is that except in cases of incest, rape, or danger to the life of the mother, abortions should be outlawed. The compromise: those who consider it the taking of a life, or otherwise have religious issues, can decide for themselves re the exceptions I listed. Otherwise, the arguments about women's rights in this matter ring hollow to me. I might be wrong, but aren't most abortions elective, carried out primarily because the mother just doesn't want the child, and not just for risk to her health, or because of rape or incest?
Jean
" Is it because it graphically displays, for all to see, what that callously termed clooection of cells actually is?"
DeleteI guess we disagree because I don't believe my rewording of your question changes the fundamental tone. I know your intent isn't to annoy me. Perhaps you see something completely unique in your post that is different from the underlying tone of the ad. Respectfully, I really don't. For the far left to make their point, they seek to desensitize us to the end result of an abortion. From the right, they seek to ultrasensitize us to the horror of what an abortion looks like. Both, IMO, are demanding that the world see things their way.
So, here is the standoff. Essentially, Jean, you are no less obstinate then me. Your view, if I read correctly, is that abortion should be outlawed except for very rare occasions. My view is that I really don't care what the far left or the far right believes is morally just. What I do care about is that legal abortion is the law of the land and conservatives are basically using heavy handed tactics to outlaw it at a local level. Further, I care about fixing the social failures that contribute to women choosing abortion. Likely, you don't really care about how I see it IF it means that abortion doesn't get outlawed.
Temporarily Jean, conservatives are winning this battle in selected states because they are using local law to create their own parallel universe. If you think those tactics won't bite us in the ass later, God bless.
This is pure and simple. There is NO deception here and that is why the leftist hate it. Tooooo bad!
ReplyDeletePure. Simple. No deception. Exactly
DeleteJean
Over 50 million of these "things" have been eliminated since Roe v Wade.
Delete