{"id":65980,"date":"2015-07-10T07:50:05","date_gmt":"2015-07-10T11:50:05","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=65980"},"modified":"2015-07-28T11:30:41","modified_gmt":"2015-07-28T15:30:41","slug":"media-matters-wants-medical-necessity-texas-regs-careful-wish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/media-matters-wants-medical-necessity-texas-regs-careful-wish\/","title":{"rendered":"Media Matters wants more on the ‘medical necessity’ of Texas regs? Be careful what you wish for"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Still pretending to be an objective media watchdog (and still fooling nobody), the far-left<\/a>, pro<\/a>–abortion<\/a> propaganda mill Media Matters is complaining<\/a> that mainstream reporting on Texas’s disputed abortion clinic regulations<\/a> has a pro-life<\/em> bias. Yes, really:<\/p>\n

\n

Media coverage of Texas’ anti-abortion laws often provides equal coverage to both sides of the debate, at the expense of fact-checking anti-abortion proponents who claim, against the advice of medical experts, that the legislation helps women, as Amanda Marcotte noted in a July 2 post<\/a> for RH Reality Check. Pointing to a recent article<\/a> from NPR on the Supreme Court’s move to temporarily block the state’s restrictions, Marcotte explained that although the piece’s efforts to quote both sides “is not, in itself, an issue,” a statement from a representative from Texas Right to Life, which claimed the law was simply meant to protect women’s health, went unquestioned. “What is frustrating is that there is not a whiff of an effort to provide actual real-world facts to give the audience context,” wrote Marcotte.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

Ignoring the patent absurdity<\/a> of citing Amanda Marcotte as an authority on journalistic ethics, the piece goes on to whine that \u201cThe New York Times<\/a>, The Washington Post<\/a>, and The Wall Street Journal<\/a> each included statements from both sides of the debate arguing that they were protecting women’s health while failing to note that medical experts don’t support the legislation\u201d:<\/p>\n

\n

Health experts have roundly<\/a> backed abortion access advocates in their assertion that laws of this nature are both medically unnecessary and dangerous to women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Health Association condemned<\/a> such measures in a joint amicus brief, writing that the measure to be implemented in Texas “jeopardize[s] the health of women” and “denies them access” to safe abortions.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There are at least three major ways this manufactured outrage fails.<\/p>\n

First, of the four outlets they cite, only WSJ<\/em> could plausibly be claimed to have an editorial disposition against abortion. Just last month, the editorial boards of both NYT<\/a> and WaPo<\/a> bemoaned attacks on \u201cabortion rights\u201d\u2014the latter of which was the paper\u2019s latest in a string of attacks on the very law Media Matters is talking about.<\/p>\n

NPR\u2019s loyalties are similarly on the record\u2014in 2010, managing editor David Sweeny mandated<\/a> that staff refer to each side not by the respectfully neutral \u201cpro-life\u201d and \u201cpro-choice,\u201d but the blatantly loaded \u201cabortion rights advocates\u201d and \u201cabortion rights opponents.\u201d This April, Kansas for Life legislative director Kathy Ostrowski laid out<\/a> how they omitted key details from their interview with her, gave Planned Parenthood three times the quotes they used from her, and misstated key facts at the pro-life side\u2019s expense.<\/p>\n

You want to suggest any of these could occasionally omit pro-abortion talking points out of laziness? Sure, I\u2019ll buy that. But a consistent, willful effort to make pro-aborts look weaker? Don\u2019t make me laugh.<\/p>\n

Second, there are other pro-abortion biases in the sample articles that don\u2019t seem to bother Media Matters. The NPR piece<\/a> suggests \u201csome hospitals are reluctant to grant\u201d admitting privileges \u201cbecause of religious reasons, or because abortion is so controversial.\u201d Really? Are those the only<\/em> reasons\u2014religious dogma interfering with health care or fear of controversy? None of the hospitals are motivated by any secular views that abortion violates a physician\u2019s basic duty to do no harm<\/a>?<\/p>\n

WaPo mentions<\/a> a ban on what \u201csome call\u201d partial-birth abortions, as if there was some dispute that that\u2019s exactly what<\/a> the legislation prohibited. MM may fret that readers won\u2019t walk away confident that the law is wrong, but the reports in no way come across as ringing endorsements, either.<\/p>\n

Third, and most importantly, the law\u2019s medical fraudulence is far from the objective fact Media Matters pretends it is. For instance, they probably wouldn\u2019t like you to know that the medical organizations they cite are themselves biased\u2014the ACOG, for instance, redefined<\/a> \u201cpregnancy\u201d from fertilization to implantation (in direct contradiction<\/a> to how OB\/GYNs actually use the terms) and in 1996 allowed<\/a> the Clinton Administration to modify their statement on partial-birth abortion, both for political expediency. Similarly, the AMA\u2019s credibility took a hit when they tried to pass off as objective fetal pain research a study whose lead author had been a NARAL lawyer<\/a>. (Also noteworthy: when there aren\u2019t abortions to promote, the AMA is more than willing to be one of thirty-two medical organizations<\/a> who affirm that admitting privileges and emergency transfer agreements are a \u201cmust\u201d for any \u201coffice-based surgery.\u201d)<\/p>\n

The \u201cunnecessary\u201d lie is also hard to square with the reality of the Texas abortion industry:<\/p>\n