So, after at least 200,000 (!) converge on the Mall yesterday to protest the legality of Abortion ... here's the coverage we get from CNN.
Here are a couple of questions I'd love to have CNN answer just about this article ....
1. you wrote: thousands of anti-abortion activists descended on the National Mall to challenge his position.
Well, at conservative count it was more than 200,000 (as reported on NPR this morning) which is certainly more than "thousands". And, dear CNN, we didn't come to challenge Mr. Obama's position, but rather to over-turn a bad Supreme Court decision from 1973. Speakers at the rally (with the very vocal approval of the attendees) did ask Mr. Obama questions to get him to think rationally -- when does life begin?
2. when you quote Mr. Obama as saying, "Roe v. Wade "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," Obama said in a statement.; why don't you question this rationale? At it's most basic, a fetus is a growing being attached to a woman -- how can ripping part of a woman out of her body (for usually no other reason than as an ultimate form of birth control) protect the woman's health? Why didn't you then quote one of the women who spoke at yesterday's rally who has survived an abortion ... and her mental and physical health were adversely affected? Isn't this the other side of the equation? How many women (and men who may have encouraged the abortion) have been adversely affected -- both mentally and physically, not to mention spiritually -- by an abortion?
3. why is it when you quote Mr. Obama, abortion lobby, and NOW you include hot-links for further information, but when you quote pro-life, Mexico City policy and the March, you have no hot-links for further information. Is this unbiased reporting? Is this why we want a free press, one that is set as the fourth estate and immune from taking sides? And calling the Mexico City Policy the "global gag order" is unbiased?
4. why is your article filled with pro-abortionist quotes and yet few quotes from the Rally? Why do you not mention that there were few (if any -- I didn't see any but then it was such a huge crowd of pro-lifers, I might have missed them) pro-abortion activists present to deny what the 200,000+ demonstrators were protesting?
5. why do you quote Ms. Gandy, who doesn't understand legisltative process? FOCA is a dead piece of legislation; it is NOT pending but rather needs to be re-introduced. Further, if you read the text of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act as introduced in April 2007 by Sen. Boxer, it does not attempt to "codify" Roe v Wade but rather to thrust abortion into public funding and private affairs. FOCA would legislate that health care providers cannot CHOOSE to deny an abortion (even if the health of the mother requires that an abortion not be done), the hospital and insurance carriers cannot CHOOSE to deny funding for an abortion, and the family members (including the biological father) cannot CHOOSE to save the baby. Kind of a misnomer to even call it the "Freedom of Choice Act" ... maybe it would be better to call it the "Freedom FROM Choice Act" (although FFCA doesn't sound as good?)
When is the public media going to look at the facts and start talking about the "other side"; or at least present both sides in this ongoing debate. As a pro-lifer, as a female interested in her own "reproductive rights", as an active participant in the political process, and as someone who used to work in the Nation's Capital, who has studied journalism and journalistic ethics ... it saddens me to see CNN -- you, who used to be the bastion of free, and unbiased reporting -- forgetting your watchdog nature and catering to one side of a debate! Pitiful!
moving again ...
5 years ago