{"id":72839,"date":"2015-09-02T10:55:19","date_gmt":"2015-09-02T14:55:19","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=72839"},"modified":"2015-09-02T15:02:49","modified_gmt":"2015-09-02T19:02:49","slug":"vox-writers-fear-public-might-think-planned-parenthood-believes-fetuses-are-humans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/vox-writers-fear-public-might-think-planned-parenthood-believes-fetuses-are-humans\/","title":{"rendered":"Planned Parenthood called aborted fetus ‘a baby.’ Vox doesn’t think you should know that."},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Feel like you\u2019re not smart enough to follow current events? If so, don\u2019t worry – Vox can help.\u00a0According to<\/a> its parent company, Vox.com\u2019s<\/a> mission is to \u201cexplain the news,\u201d with staff capable of \u201cshepherding people through complex topics.\u201d<\/p>\n

Naturally, this involves shielding them from\u00a0dangerous ideas.<\/p>\n

Swedish philosophy professor Torbjorn Tannsjo learned this first hand. As Blake Neff reported<\/a> in the Daily Caller, Tannsjo was asked\u00a0to write a piece for\u00a0Vox\u00a0about the mere addition paradox (also known as the repugnant conclusion<\/a>), a philosophical problem suggesting there would be more happiness in a world where more people existed, even if they enjoyed a lower quality of life. Tannsjo submitted his article and waited… and waited.<\/p>\n

Eventually, Tannsjo was told the editors had \u201ca real concern\u201d readers might \u201cmisinterpret\u201d his arguments as \u201cimplying opposition to abortion rights.\u201d While \u00a0acknowledging that Tannsjo\u00a0intended no such opposition, the shepherds at Vox didn\u2019t want to take the risk.<\/p>\n

Given how Vox seems to regard its readership as intellectual livestock, I\u2019m not surprised by this approach. And Vox isn\u2019t just choosy about what it publishes; its writers are selective about what they see and hear, too.<\/p>\n

Take Sarah Kliff<\/a>. Last month, she wrote<\/a> about Planned Parenthood\u2019s body parts scandal, claiming to have watched all of the footage that the Center for Medical Progress<\/a> (CMP) had released. Interestingly, Kliff focused on the question of whether \u201cPlanned Parenthood intends to make money\u201d from supplying fetal body parts\u00a0but\u00a0ignored the other crimes<\/a> that Planned Parenthood officials were caught discussing.<\/p>\n

For example, she doesn\u2019t mention that under federal\u00a0law,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0a felony<\/a> to alter “the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy\u2026 solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue,\u201d something multiple Planned Parenthood officials offer to do. She also doesn\u2019t bring up that in the first video<\/a>, Dr. Deborah Nucatola seems to describe performing partial-birth abortions, a procedure that\u2019s been banned since 2003.<\/p>\n

\"partialbirthabortion\"<\/p>\n

In her conclusion, Kliff notes that \u201cPlanned Parenthood workers are comfortable with fetal tissue research because they are comfortable with abortion.\u201d According to her, this is because they don’t view a pre-born child as \u201ca living, feeling human being.\u201d If that\u2019s the impression Kliff got, then there\u00a0are\u00a0some things she should probably watch again.<\/p>\n

Perhaps this video, where at 9:08, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ vice president,\u00a0Dr. Savita Ginde, looks down at an aborted fetus and declares, \u201cIt\u2019s a baby<\/a>\u201d:<\/p>\n