{"id":166333,"date":"2017-05-26T09:30:54","date_gmt":"2017-05-26T13:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=166333"},"modified":"2017-05-25T09:39:55","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T13:39:55","slug":"four-things-media-wont-tell-about-abortion-advocates-inconsistent-inaccurate-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-things-media-wont-tell-about-abortion-advocates-inconsistent-inaccurate-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Four things the media won’t tell you about abortion advocates’ inconsistent, inaccurate claims"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Abortion advocates say some outrageous things. Recently long-time pro-abortion leader Gloria Steinem made news for claiming\u00a0that climate change exists\u00a0because there aren’t enough abortions<\/a>. No matter what abortion fans say,\u00a0it seems that the abortion-friendly media covers for them.\u00a0Recently, AP wrote a glowing feature on Steinem<\/a>, calling her a “Feminist icon.”<\/p>\n

You can be sure that if the media is pointing out only the positives about abortion advocates, there are things they are\u00a0leaving out — like certain inconsistencies in messaging. Here are four things the media isn’t pointing out when it comes to those who advocate in favor of abortion:<\/p>\n

1. Abortion advocates\u00a0can’t seem to agree\u00a0on the ‘pro-abortion’ title<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gloria Steinem has called it<\/a> “obviously ridiculous” to call someone ‘pro-abortion’, and then went on to say\u00a0that “[t]he question is not pro-abortion or anti-abortion, the question is who makes the decision: a woman and her physician, or the government.”<\/p>\n

What is this “decision” to which Gloria Steinem refers? It’s\u00a0“the decision” to end the life of an innocent, defenseless, and vulnerable preborn human life.\u00a0When someone is willing to support the “choice” to have an abortion, it’s the support of a “choice” which is so brutal, so unfortunate, and so devastatingly final often that it is not enough to dress that person up as “pro-choice<\/em>.” If that person is willing to support anyone making that “choice,” that person supports abortion and is thus pro-abortion<\/em>.<\/p>\n

If anyone is pro-abortion, it’s those who make up the abortion industry and profit from it, especially\u00a0Planned Parenthood, which opposes any and all commonsense abortion regulations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It’s also certainly not “ridiculous” to call someone ‘pro-abortion’ if they themselves proudly admit to it. “I am pro-abortion, not just pro-choice<\/a>,”declared Valerie Tarico<\/a>\u00a0for Salon.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

2. Abortion advocates\u00a0can’t seem to decide on whether abortion is “political”<\/strong><\/p>\n

It should go without saying that our government will protect all lives, including voiceless preborn Americans. Unfortunately, we are included in only a handful of nations<\/a> which allows for abortions up until birth, for any reason. The way to change that is arguably to change the law, by going through the political and judicial system.<\/p>\n

Abortion advocates are working from a political standpoint as well. Steinem admits as much to AP:<\/p>\n

But [Steinem] said in past decades supporting Planned Parenthood was \u201cnot as electoral as it is now.\u201d She said the organization did not even have a political arm in the early days, \u201cit was a service provider.\u201d<\/p>\n

That has changed in recent years, as abortion rights groups have sharpened their attacks against Planned Parenthood\u2019s key role in providing legal abortions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Planned Parenthood vowed\u00a0to spend an unprecedented $20 million in the 2016 elections<\/a>, and still lost<\/a>. In 2012, however, possibly using taxpayer dollars<\/a>, the\u00a0organization\u00a0spent $15 million to re-elect pro-abortion President Barack Obama. When Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards testified before a Congressional panel in September 2015, takeaways from the testimony<\/a> included concerns that taxpayer subsidies which were supposed to fund Planned Parenthood, the so-called “service provider,” were funding political affiliates as well.<\/p>\n

Richards has flip-flopped on whether or not abortion and Planned Parenthood are\u00a0political.\u00a0When asked about the existence of\u00a0pro-life Democrats by self-professed “pro-choice Republican” Nicolle Wallace on MSNBC, Richards claimed<\/a> “abortion… shouldn’t be politicized.”<\/p>\n

But Richards has a political<\/a> (not healthcare) background, and has\u00a0revealed her desire to\u00a0repeal “every single restriction” on abortion<\/a>. That sounds pretty political to me.<\/p>\n

3. Abortion advocates are\u00a0still making the debunked claims\u00a0that Planned Parenthood is\u00a0a life-saving organization, and that abortion is only a tiny percentage of its services.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cancer survivor<\/a>\u00a0Leah Westwater “credits a Planned Parenthood doctor in California with early detection of her thyroid cancer” in an AP article attempting to paint Planned Parenthood in a positive light. While we can all be genuinely thankful Westwater’s cancer was caught early, Westwater is in what is becoming more and more the minority when it comes to those receiving cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood. These legitimate health care services have been plummeting at Planned Parenthood, even while the organization’s taxpayer dollars have increased.<\/a><\/p>\n