The American media tends to consist of highly educated individuals, many of whom went to elite academic institutions. They tend to congregate in large urban environments surrounded by like-minded people who have similar interests and world views. The result is a media that is urban, coastal, secular, and progressive.
Good reporters tend to be mindful of their biases. Most reporters do not. In ways large and small, from what the press chooses to cover, chooses not to cover, and chooses to use as narrative constructs for stories, the secular, urban, progressive worldview is pervasive. Many reporters are not well-traveled outside other urban enclaves. Much of America is more foreign to them than European cities. Too many political reporters only venture out into the heartland of flyover country during presidential campaign season.
Nowhere is progressive bias in the media more prevalent than in coverage of abortion. Anchors and reporters are almost all in favor of killing children. They may personally have not killed their own child, but they will support a woman’s right to have a child’s brain injected with a solution designed to kill her and then have her scraped, torn, or vacuumed from her mother’s uterus. If this is all appalling to read, note how these reporters, anchors, and pundits avoid discussing what they euphemistically call a ‘right to choose.’
The entire abortion discussion on television is designed to advocate for abortion. I know this first hand. Over several years at CNN, whenever the issue arose, I was asked to be the man who would confront the pro-abortion anchor and the pro-abortion expressly female guest opposite me. When I could, I would decline and suggest a long list of pro-life female advocates in Washington, DC who were readily available. Rarely were they asked. Almost to a network, television producers and anchors want the optics of a man advocating against abortion being challenged by a woman who can talk about her body and her choice. One would think female advocates against abortion did not exist despite virtually every pro-life organization in Washington being helmed by a woman.
Conservative talk radio is actually not much better. I have been in conservative talk radio for a decade. I regularly talk about my faith, social conservatism, socially conservative policies, and the pro-life cause. In July of this year, I was the only host who had stepped into the void left by Rush Limbaugh to rate number one in a top ten radio market. In Atlanta, I was the number one radio show across formats, i.e. music and talk. In six months of nationally syndicated radio, I have already charted as the twenty-sixth most-listened-to host nationwide. One might think I know something about radio. But corporate owners of radio networks have more than once insisted I not discuss religion, faith, or socially conservative issues. They too prefer an “us vs them” coverage of daily politics. I politely ignore them.
The bias is so pervasive, you have undoubtedly heard Texas has, in the words of one CNN news anchor, unleashed a pro-life law with “dark dystopian undertones.” News networks, led by progressive female anchors, have declared the Supreme Court abandoned Roe v Wade and effectively rendered abortion unconstitutional. I could only wish that were the case.
In Texas, the legislature passed a law that allows citizens a private right to sue to stop abortion. The Supreme Court let the law stay in effect, pending litigation, because the pro-abortion advocates who sued filed suit against state officials who cannot, under that law, enforce it. Courts cannot stop laws. They can only stop people from enforcing laws and the people to be stopped must be the ones sued. Abortion advocates would have you believe abortion is now banned. The American media, with its bias, is amplifying that talking point. The reality is the plaintiffs sued the wrong people.
Sadly, Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. The claims of dystopia are fiction from a biased, insular press that is in favor of killing children. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will overturn Roe. But that has not happened and probably won’t. The apocalypse will have to wait for Jesus.
Relatedly, I want to say I’m not sure of the overall wisdom of the Texas legislation. But I appreciate its novelty. Obviously, giving a private right here will give the left an opportunity to assert a private right there. Of course, I fully expect the left to overplay their hand in absurdity.
Notwithstanding all that, a lot of people are looking at the Texas law and decrying the politics of it — it’ll hurt the GOP. It’ll fire up the Democrats. Who cares?
Abortion is morally evil. If one is unwilling to use power to fight a moral evil because one is afraid he might lose that power, he has no business having that power to begin with. One abortionist in Texas admitted to doing up to three dozen abortions a day and now is doing none. That is three dozen children murdered in a day. Stopping abortionists with the law is a good thing. The left, with the media, as I mentioned above, will always use the worst-case scenario and hyperbole to punish anyone who opposes killing kids. We should not let politics deter righteousness.
Additionally, isn’t it funny how quickly the left ditches their “men can have babies” nonsense the moment abortion is mentioned. It seems the left can only hold one view contrary to science at one time.
They cannot hold both “men can have babies” and “life begins at the hospital after delivery” in their heads at the same time. The moment the latter is threatened, the former is abandoned.
This also shows that in the sacramental rankings of the secular religion, killing children ranks higher than gender identity in both dogma and practice. Moloch must be placated over the dude who thinks he is a woman.
Sacrificing children to Moloch is the chief sacrament of secular progressivism and Hell will unleash itself to defame, slur, lie, and attack any major pro-life advance. Just turn on any cable news network and behold the mouthpieces of the mighty prince of the air(waves).
National Review Online published a column by Roger Severino very favorable toward Texas' attempt to quell the headlong rush to murder these most innocent and vulnerable of all human beings.
I was stunned, then, to see the replies were running 50-50 for and against this attempt.
But nothing prepared me for THIS comment: -->"There is no such thing as 'pre-born children' anymore than you re 'pre-deceased' because you are still alive. Assuming you are human, of course."
Read it again: "There is no such thing as 'pre-born children.'"
This is the "spirit of the age" we are up against. For the "father of lies," as Jesus called him, it is all-out war against Truth, against Christ and His kingdom.
For we Christians, this issue is much about what God would have us do, given our capabilities as mortals.
Christians who believe in the eventual return of Jesus Christ must logically admit that He has not yet returned. He is not here with us now. At least not in a ruling or governing fashion. He has not yet dried every tear. His perfect millennial kingdom has not yet begun.
Mortal society does not have His supernatural abilities to set up the perfect 1,000 year reign and govern according to His perfect will. Until His return, we must know our limitations and govern ourselves according to what would be best for the whole of society. Surely, we know we will fall short of His perfection.
We can rightly assume during His 1,000 year kingdom that there will be no unwanted pregnancies. We can further assume that there will be no pregnancies that are found to be unviable or are threatening the health of the mother. But until He returns, our society is severely handicapped with sin.
As appalling as we might consider abortion, we must also consider poor parenting, poverty, and childhood neglect as appalling. No thinking person can say our mortal society has been able to solve those problems or even improve the trajectory. Mortal society has equally not funded an infrastructure to sufficiently care for persons born with severe mental and physical handicaps. We can’t ignore the consequences of forcing people to have unwanted children. See Romania under Ceausescu.
We must also concede, banning abortion will not stop abortion.
Our Bible tells us we all sin. I tip my cap to those who are strong enough to wait until marriage. For the rest of us, we must concede that, there but for the grace of God, go any of us.
As Christians we must choose (key word), for whom do we weep the most? Is it the unborn child? Or is it the mother, family, and an unwanted child forced into an ill equipped society. And, are we really prepared to prosecute young girls who are living in this new era of legal risk?