NRLC and LifeNews.com spotlight NYT abortion photo exposé
I was pleased to see both the National Right to Life Committee and Steve Ertelt at LifeNews.com cover the New York Times October 10 photo essay of aborted babies.
I wondered if they would acknowledge the piece since both, the last I knew, opposed the use of graphic photos of aborted babies in pro-life advocacy [clarification: in public protests].
Hopefully as time goes on, maybe even thanks to the NYT piece, they will see their value. One less argument to have. It would be great if LifeNews.com would begin covering activist protests.
I’ve searched a couple times the last few days for pro-abort thoughts on the NYT piece, but haven’t found anything. Did anyone else?
Dave Andrusko of NRLC wrote quite positively about the photo exposé, even linking to the photos – twice – and describing them. Andrusko also had good insights on the comments to the article….
The history of [Monica Miller’s] involvement, and her evolving views on how best these photos might be used, can be found on the Times’s web page. Cave’s fascinating interview with the woman whose photographs of aborted babies have appeared all over the country “since the mid-1990s,” and the four photos of aborted babies can be found at http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/behind-19/?scp=2&sq=damien%20cave&st=cse.
What is amazing for pro-lifers, of course, is that the topic was discussed at all and, even more breath-taking, that the Times would have the gumption to show photos of aborted babies on its website.
We see a mid-1980s photo described by Mrs. Migliorino Miller as “Unborn baby, 5 months’ gestation, aborted with saline abortion technique”; “Foot–broken at the ankle,” a 14-16 week-old baby killed by suction abortion in 2008; “Hand of baby aborted 16 weeks gestation by suction method” in 2009; and “The feet of unborn baby 6 months, prostaglandin abortion method” from the mid 1980s.
Almost as riveting was the heated give-and-take in the comment section which followed. You expected what you read in the first few (which were indicative of many), people whose hatred for pro-lifers is almost clinical. They need to distance themselves from the horror of what they saw, assuming they had the courage to look, and, I suspect, from their own involvement, at least in some cases.
So, they string together the usuals – that pro-lifers only care about “fetuses”; we hate women; what about “unwanted children?”; most abortions are done in the first trimester when the unborn have “flippers” [!]; we couldn’t care less about babies after they are born; and, in general, mind your own business.
But to find in the NYT the eloquence – and the number – of the pro-life responses was startling.
They debunked each of these threadbare pro-abortion rationalizations. One of my favorites is, “An 8 week old fetus does not have flippers or a tail. It looks like a tiny human.”
Perhaps most revealing is that the pro-life respondents refused to be pigeonholed. As one writer put it, “What does it matter liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, religious or secular?
These are human beings and what the abortionists do to these babies would not be allowed to happen to dogs.”
Which helped put the e-mail from the self-described “classic, left-clinging liberal in all ways but the abortion issue” in context. Her eyes had been opened when, many years ago, she took a friend to a clinic to have an abortion.
“Although these photos are horrific they do speak a truth, a truth that so many pro-choice types refuse to admit,” she wrote.
And then there was that most telling voice, the voice of sad experience. “I was once fooled into killing my child,” wrote one woman. “It ate my heart out from within until I found help and healing. Now a part of the pro-life movement, and still a single woman, I have had the great privileged of adopting 2 children whom the pro-abortion movement would have preferred to see dead.”
Finally there was the woman who wrote about her involvement many years ago in the pro-abortion movement which was, I gather, a reflection of her liberal views. “I haven’t changed in my political principles and values, but there has certainly been one change: I am now against abortion, and now – for the first time – speaking out against the violence of dismembering our children.”
She concluded with this remarkable statement: “Do not tell me that my own two babies expelled from my womb are something subhuman or sub-personal. It is I who failed the test of being ‘human’ or ‘personal’ when I aborted them…”
Please take a few minutes to visit http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/behind-19/?scp=2&sq=damien%20cave&st=cse. I would also encourage you to write the Times to thank the paper for its courage.
Jill, I guess I don’t understand why you didn’t bother to email me first before posting this false and misleading information on your blog.
LifeNews.com has never opposed the use of graphic photos and we have run numerous stories on groups that use graphic photos. In fact we have repeatedly covered the student groups at colleges in Canada and the United States who have faced sanctions or discipline for using such photos.
We have also run stories on drivers of the truth trucks who have faced attacks from abortion advocates or threats/issues from local police for doing so.
LifeNews.com has frequently covered activist protests whether it is the 40 Days for Life, March for Life, Walk for Life, activities outside abortion centers, laws that infringe on free speech rights like the Chicago bubble zone or the Oakland ordinance targeting Walter Hoye, unfair arrests of pro-life advocates, Notre Dame protests, etc.
Any claim that LifeNews.com does not cover the pro-life activism outside abortion centers is seriously misinformed. I would expect that from abortion advocates or the mainstream media but not from a pro-life blogger of your standing.
A simple search of our news archives prior to publishing this false information would have easily revealed those news stories.
Jill, you also failed to note that LifeNews.com also linked to the NYT story and graphic picture montage.
Personally, I have never articulated a position that you describe as having “opposed the use of graphic photos of aborted babies in pro-life advocacy.”
My position as always been that the use of graphic pictures has a place in pro-life advocacy but they are more effective when used in a one-on-one or small group conversation/presentation about abortion rather than just displaying them in public.
That is a position that is consistent with a large segment of the pro-life movement that understands such pictures are more effective when used personally to describe how abortion kills unborn children rather than as mere shock value to draw attention. It is also consistent with the position of most pregnancy center and post-abortion groups that note a) the pictures are not as helpful in persuading abortion-minded women to keep their baby and b) how they have a hurtful effect on women who have had abortions, whether they have received healing from Christ or not.
I have shown graphic pictures and have given a clear notice beforehand to groups where I have done so in order that people who don’t wish to view them have a chance to opt-out and realize I am not just trying to gain shock value but have a legitimate conversation about why abortion is wrong.
On the Internet, I believe there is a responsible way to use graphic pictures by at least having a warning or a note informing potential viewers that they are about to see disturbing pictures so they have a chance to opt-out.
Graphic pictures have a use within pro-life advocacy when used responsibly. Just as I don’t believe they should never be used, I don’t believe they are the best method or the only method of persuading people who are not pro-life to become so.
Ultimately, the time has come to quit attacking pro-life people who don’t use the same methods. We have so many battles to face and so many babies die every day to have to spend time defending one’s view on graphic pictures from false and misleading attacks like this.
We can disagree on the scope of the use of graphic pictures without someone being less pro-life than the other. As members of the same human race where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, no one has the moral high ground above someone else.
Next time you consider publishing something that allegedly represents my views of those of LifeNews.com, please contact me beforehand.
I thought my paragraphs before the statement “It would be great if LifeNews.com would begin covering activist protests” indicated I was speaking of activist protests with graphic photos. I’m sorry if I was unclear. There are 2 different types of activist protests, and of course you cover the 40 Days types.
You wrote, “Personally, I have never articulated a position that you describe as having ‘opposed the use of graphic photos of aborted babies in pro-life advocacy.'”
Steve, yes you have. You took that very position at a dinner a few years ago, with Fr. Pavone and I speaking in their favor. The conversation became quite animated as I recall. It went along the lines of your “That is a position…” paragraph above. As a matter of fact, do you realize you verified my observation in your response?
You also said you spiked stories involving pickets of graphic photos. You said you wouldn’t cover them. This was confirmed by a pro-life colleague activist who told me you ignore his press releases.
If your position on covering those sorts of protests has changed, I’m sorry I missed that and will post a correction. Let me know.
Jill, LifeNews.com has covered protests and people who use graphic photos in public. Your statement is factually incorrect and anyone can verify this by going to http://www.LifeNews.com and checking our achives.
Most recently, we covered the shooting death of James Pouillon — who we repteatedly mentioned would show graphic pictures to the high school students where he protested. In fact we highlighted how this was the apparent motivation for his killer shooting him.
Jill, I’m sorry you chose to make public what was a private conversation several years back.
But my position then was no different than what I stated now.
I stated that I felt the use of graphic pictures in the general public is not effective and cited several reasons why ranging from polls of people’s reactions and the effectiveness of other educational methods to what I cited above about their effectvieness with pregnant women considering abortion and their impact on the post-abortive.
I think there are better ways to promote the pro-life perspective but it doesn’t mean I “oppose” the use of the pictures. Also, I just believe they are better used in private or small groups and I personally don’t show them to public without saying so first but I don’t oppose pro-life groups or people showing them publicly. That we have a different approach in how they are used doesn’t merit your inaccurate description of me opposing them in general and wishing I would “get it.”
As a reporter, you should have checked with me first before making a false assumption based on a several-years-old conversation. You should have at least given me a chance to comment before “reporting.”
As far as spiking stories are concerned, LifeNews.com does not spike stories involving graphic pictures. We have written dozens of stories that involve the pictures either in a primary or secondary sense.
The news stories we spike are ones where pro-life groups or people attack other pro-life groups or people. LifeNews.com will not be a forum for attacks on methods or straegy. We can and should have constructive debates on those but not attacks where people or groups are regarded as less than pro-life because they do things differently.
If someone you know happens to have a beef with LifeNews.com, I suggest you tell them to contact me personally to work it out, rather than posting allegations on a public forum. Otherwise you turn a respected pro-life blog into a gossip site.
I would appreciate a retracton. Regardless of what you *think* my position is and what LifeNews.com has or hasn’t reported, it doesn’t match with the truth.
And in the future, please drop me an email because making an assumption about LifeNews.com or me.
What’s wrong with shock value? The majority of Pro-lifers in America fell asleep and are finally starting to wake up, thanks to the graphic imagery of the worst genocide in the history of man and the election of the real Dr Evil, BO.
We all have our part in the Pro-life Army, Christian, non-Christian, liberal, conservative, pro-graphic imagery, con-graphic imagery. Sometimes we operate in different divisions with different intermediary objectives but the same ultimate objective: stop the murder of innocent children.
Graphic imagery would obviously be unsuitable for teaching elementary school students or counseling post-abortive moms but it is exactly what we need to break through the apathy plaguing the majority of Americans and to refute the lies of the pro-death crowd.
There needs to be shock value! We’ve been murdering children by the millions for almost 37 years in this country!
As Dr. Evil would say, “”Throw me a frickin bone here people. I’ve been frozen for thirty years, kay. I’m the boss, need the info (graphic imagery).”
Ed, we agree on more than you think. You are right about schoolkids and the post-abortive.
Shock value for the sake of shock value is not helpful. Many people who see the graphic photos merely get angry with the pro-life people who use them and become increasingly turned off to the pro-life message. I don’t want to just upset people, I want to convert them. And sometimes honesy does more to attract…
But people are different, and that is why I advocate a respectful and smart showing of graphic pictures.
For some, there is no doubt that graphic pictures will get them to realize the travesty of abortion and alarm them enough to do something about it. But for others we will lose them to the pro-life message and it saddens me to see that happen.
One of th things that is lost in the willy-nilly public showing of the pictures is the opportunity for follow-up. Groups that go from town to town to show the pictures, for example, leave town after just a couple of hours and there is no opportunity to follow up the pictures with a conversation and a way to convert people or help them understand.
There is no opposition, no attack on graphic pictures. Just a call to be purposeful and thorough when they are used.
After all, the pictures are serious and deal with the serious topic of genocide. They should be treated and used seriously with a regard for their effect, both positive and negative.
Thanks,
Steven
Steve,
I posted a clarification in case I wasn’t clear that you oppose the use of graphic photos “in public protests.”
We will have to agree to disagree that you objectively report on pro-life protests where graphic photos are used.
For instance, I just googled “LifeNews.com abortion plane Notre Dame” off the top of my head, which was a pretty big story, and didn’t see anything on LifeNews.com. I apologize in advance if I missed your coverage of that.
Jill, I don’t oppose the use of graphic photos in abortion protests. I’ve corrected you repteatedly in my comments above. Most journalists would issue a retraction when informed about something that is factually incorrect in their news stories, I don’t know why that is not the case here.
As far as your opinion that LifeNews.com is not objective in its reporting, I hope you will at least label your post as an opinion.
No, LifeNews.com did not report on the abortion plane. I know it is easy to pick out one example and rely on a fallacy of composition argument that somehow it represents the universe of 15,000+ news stories we’ve run over the years. But unless your objective is to trash a fellow pro-lifer, I don’t know why you would do such a thing.
With regard to Notre Dame, anyone can easily check to see that we issued dozens of reports on the Obama speech at ND and the reaction. That included reports on the protestors (with one issued very recently), the students who protested, reaction from the local bishop, etc.
This has really devolved and if you have anything to say about LifeNews.com or problems with me I would hope you would repect our shared Christian views and status as fellow pro-life colleages and contact me privately instead of issuing public attacks and statements that are very clearly false.
Steve,
The conversation is not devolving. Your persistent denial of my points – basically calling me either a liar or a shoddy reporter – forces me to prove them and get specific when I didn’t originally plan on it.
You said you “personally… have never articulated a position that you describe as having ‘opposed the use of graphic photos of aborted babies in pro-life advocacy.'” And I knew you had. So I had to back up my statement.
You denied spiking stories about pro-life activism using graphic photos, yet I knew you had. So I had to back up my statement with the example of the abortion plane, which was an international story that stretched out over the course of weeks. I know there are more if I think about it, although I’d rather not.
Again, my original intent was to give kudos to you and NRLC for showing positivity re: graphic aborted baby photos. I wish you had let it go at that.
Jill, I do not regard you as a liar or shoddy reporter.
As far as being a liar is concerned, what am I supposed to do when you write false statements about LifeNews.com and me and refuse to retract them when I’ve informed you they are not correct.
Your refusal makes it so either you either purposefully want to attack a fellow pro-lifers or you just don’t care that you’ve said something wrong about someone. what else can I conclude?
As far as being a shoddy reporter is concerned, you didn’t email me first to check that your false claims about LifeNews.com and me were true. Most reporters do that. And when confronted with errors in your “reporting” you fail to issue a retraction. Instead, you issue a “correction” that is equally false. Again, what am I and your readers to conclude when you give your pro-life colleague worse treatment than the pro-abortion media?
There is no spiking of any story at LifeNews.com.
With regard to Notre Dame, our reporting focused on Obama and Notre Dame, where the focus on that thread needed to be. There were a million parenthetical stories on that, some of which we covered and some of which we didn’t. It doesn’t mean we spiked anything.
What we did was follow the direction of the Bishop, who said the students and the ND community, such as alumni, should lead the protests, not outsiders.
So LifeNews.com did just that and I am very proud of our Notre Dame coverage. We wrote dozens of stories on Obama, Notre Dame, the students, the boycott, the response, etc. and were very thorough.
The “Pro-Life Pulse” didn’t cover every thread regarding Notre Dame either. Are your readers to conclude that you spiked those stories? Of course not. You can’t cover everything and focus on what you feel is most important.
LifeNews.com covers news stories every day that don’t make their way to your blog. But that has no bearing on you as you cover all sorts of topics that you have time and space to cover.
But I would never ever accuse you of spiking stories in the same way you are accusing me here. That’s not only inaccurate but it would be downright rude and insulting were I to do that.
Jill, I am not going to let it go because you publicly printed false statements about me and LifeNews.com and when corrected you refuse to correct the record.
Jill, what would you think if I posted a news story that went along the lines of:
“I was pleased to see Jill Stanek cover the LifeNews.com article on the value of the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act. I wondered if she would acknowledge the piece since she, the last I knew, opposed the legislation’s pro-life values. Hopefully as time goes on, maybe even thanks to the LifeNews.com piece, she will see its value. It would be great if Jill Stanek would begin covering the legislation.”
You would, rightfully, be livid. But I would never question your reporting our your positions on LifeNews.com as you’ve done here.
If you had thanked us for our coverage without claiming I oppose graphic photos or misrepresenting our coverage, there would be no issue. That’s not what happened here.
I’m still hoping and praying for a retraction and apology. Your response will speak volumes…
Steve,
I stand by my story, based in part on statements you have made to me as well as observation. I then corroborated.
I said I’d rather not continue finding examples of LN.com spiking stories on pro-life activism involving the use of aborted baby photos. But you won’t let it go.
So I just googled “LifeNews.com Genocide Awareness Project” and “LifeNews.com GAP” and didn’t find anything either. Again, I apologize in advance if you have written on GAP and I missed it.
Unfortunately, the NYT’s comment moderators would not let my post through (around #100). I got the response “Your comment is awaiting moderation”, but no resolution–denial or approval.
I simply responded to some of the criticisms of the NYT (particularly, not publishing earlier gestational photos, perpetuating some readers’ beliefs that earlier babies have “flippers”, or that legal abortions are necessary to save lives) by suggesting three other sources: abortionNO.org, American Life League’s “Baby Steps” video, and the “Cemetery of Choice” that chronicles the deaths of women by “safe, legal” abortions.
Maybe it’s because they don’t want competition from other sources of information. Or maybe it’s because this story was already too much for the moderators who would rather have the truth remain hidden.
Steve,
I appreciate your response.
I am not aware of anyone using this imagery for just the sake of shock value.
The Genocide Awareness Project team and others like them work with local Pro-life student groups and use graphic imagery to bring the abortion issue front and center in the minds of the local student body. It drives the debate, stirs things up, forces everyone to examine their own heart / values / belief system and decide: “Now that I know what abortion really is, what is my position going to be on this issue? If Pro-life, what should my response be? What is my duty to try to protect the unborn? What is my position in the Pro-life Army?
Young men and women are converted and babies are saved. I’m sure if there is any follow-up required, it is handled by the local Pro-life student groups.
Thirty-five years ago, my position on this issue was forever settled when I saw Nathanson’s “Silent Scream”. The GAP is fulfilling that same vital role in the Battle for Life today.
Jill, LifeNews.com has reported on graphic pictures or groups or people using them. Here is but a sample:
University of Calgary Students Plead Not Guilty to Trespassing on Their Campus
http://www.lifenews.com/int1124.html
Pro-Life Advocate Murdered Outside Michigan School While Protesting Abortion
http://www.lifenews.com/state4409.html
Australia Internet Censors Fine Site for Link to Pro-Life Page With Abortion Pics
http://www.lifenews.com/int1126.html
Canada Pro-Life Students: U. of Toronto Censored Abortion Brochures
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2570.html
Georgia Officials Arrest Pro-Lifer Whose Truck Had Graphic Abortion Pics
http://www.lifenews.com/state2628.html
British Hospital Won’t Treat Pro-Life Advocate Who Mailed Abortion Pics
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2247.html
Pro-Life Advocates Will Take Second Abortion Truck to Atlanta, Georgia
http://www.lifenews.com/state2639.html
North Dakota City Attorney Wants Abortion Truck Lawsuit Dismissed
http://www.lifenews.com/state2799.html
Abortion Advocate Runs Over Pro-Life Protester With Her Car in Idaho
http://www.lifenews.com/state1465.html
California Public School Teacher Placed on Leave After Showing Abortion Film
http://www.lifenews.com/state2889.html
Tony Kaye Abortion Documentary “Lake of Fire” Hits Theaters in October
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2942.html
And since you say you stand by your false claims about me, I don’t know what to tell you.
I do not categorically oppose the use of graphic pictures — period, end of story. I do believe there are better ways to use them than just displaying them in public and I do believe that their public display comes with negative (and positive) results that should be recognized. I do recognize myself the positive results that can be obtained. Can they save babies? Yes. Can they change opinion? You betcha?
But — Can they turn people off to the pro-life message and harden hearts? Yes. Can they inflame and motivate the other side to oppose us more? Yes. Can they bring heartache to women who have had abortions, even those who are pro-life Christians having sought forgiveness? Hearing from those who have had abortions and told me their reaction to them … definitely yes.
That is my position.
Yet, that is not what you reported even after I set the record straight, and I suppose your readers will have to decide for themselves what that says about this forum and your reporting. Other than this one instance, I don’t believe you to be a liar or a shoddy journalist, but your reluctance to correct the record here betrays that reputation you’ve previously earned. So, in this case, I believe you are being less than accurate or fair.
By the way, there are groups that “oppose the use of graphic pictures” as you wrote.
In December 2003, Care Net surveyed its affiliated centers and asked whether they used graphic abortion pictures and their opinion on the use of such materials in Care Net centers. The results showed that 94 percent already do not use graphic pictures with their clients and feel strongly that they should not be used.
So while many groups use them exclusively, many other equally pro-life Christians do not. But there is no reason to bash anyone on either side for using or not using them.
On the reporting at LifeNews.com, I have corrected the record, I have posted links here to stories where we have covered graphic pictures, and I hope you will admit that your original statement saying we do not provide such covered is incorrect.
Fortunately your readers have my posts here with my real and actual position on graphic pictures and our reporting to see for themselves. If anyone has any questions or complaints, I welcome them and can be contacted through http://www.LifeNews.com
I just hope and pray one day you will see fit to issue a retraction and apology. And I hope you will focus your time on going after Obama, Planned Parenthood and their friends, instead of your colleagues in the pro-life movement.
This has already taken up enough time that shuold be devoted to exposing the horror of abortion and unless there is something different to respond to, will be my last post on this topic.
Ed, you are right that GAP on campus is definitely more responsible in their use of the images because of their presense and ability to engage in constructive conversation. They are trained in how to talk to people from a variety of backgrounds, there’s no doubt about that.
But that doesn’t get to happen when they’re on trucks or on images on planes or with the groups that go from town to town and standing on the street a short time.
The GAP people are on campus and able to talk to folks right then and there and they are there for days to answer questions and provide help. That’s still a little more in your face in public than I care for (because there is no ability to opt out or give a realistic preview warning) but I acknowledge it is very different from other uses.
I’ve personally had to follow up with very angry pro-life people who threatened to quit the pro-life movement or pro-life groups because of pictures shown less responsibly. I’ve had to follow up with hateful pro-aborts who have threatened me because of the pictures. I’ve had to follow up with post-abortive women sobbing and wondering why people would brutally remind them of what they did and call them murderers when they had received Christ’s forgiveness.
We need to recognize this negative fallout when graphic pictures are used in other forums and ask ourselves if we’re really being responsible.
It seems to me that if we’re as concerned with stopping abortions and persuading people to be pro-life as much as we say we are, then we would want to do the best job we can of making that happen. I’ve questioned whether graphic pictures are the most effective means of communicating the pro-life message to the general public and that’s all I’ve ever done.
It seems to me that there are other ways, such as ultrasound photos, targeted pro-life commercials, etc. that yield better results. That doesn’t mean using graphic pictures are wrong or that I oppose them, as Jill claims, it just means I think there are better ways. I hope and pray groups that frequently use them achieve better results than the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen.
Steve, that you have not covered GAP for all these years is a glaring example of my point, the gap – pardon the pun – in what you report. What about the annual Pro-Life Action League Truth Tours, etc.? That you do not publicly admit the obvious disappoints me, particularly in light of a conversation we’ve had.
That said, I appreciate what you do cover and am always amazed at how prolific you are on a consistent day-in-day-out basis.
Jill, you didn’t read my post apparently. The very first article concerns students who were told they were trespassing on their own campus for bringing GAP to it.
In fact, we reported on their GAP display on September 29th of THIS year. See University of Calgary Pro-Lifers Hold Abortion Display Despite Free Speech Denial
We have a report on the display at the University of Colorado ***and a picture of the display!!!*** at University of Colorado Officials Discriminated Against Pro-Life Students
More GAP coverage can be found at:
Spokane, Washington College Subject of Hearing in Pro-Life Discrimination Case
University of Maryland BC Hit With Lawsuit From Pro-Life Students on Free Speech
Arizona College Pro-Life Group Sues Arizona State U. Over Abortion Event
This list goes on and on…
But maybe we should turn it around. Why didn’t you report on the recent vandalism of the ultrasound signs at Princeton University? Do you have a problem with pictures of unborn children? Maybe you have “opposed the use of ultrasond photos of unborn babies in pro-life advocacy.”
Of course that is absurd, as are these false accusations of not covering whatever random topic is getting.
“That you have not covered GAP for all these years….” – LOL!
I’ve showed you how we’ve covered graphic pictures, we’ve covered GAP. Perhaps now is a good time for that retraction and apology.
Steve, we’re again passing each other by here, and again, I’m disappointed you don’t acknowledge selective reporting.
While you have periodically through the years posted on incidents surrounding graphic displays, you have ignored the displays, events, and leaders themselves. (The photo you touted is not graphic, btw.) The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and GAP, the Pro-life Action League, Missionaries to the Preborn, etc., etc., perform great service to the pro-life movement, yet you shut out reporting on their work – because you don’t agree with what they do.
That’s fine. Just admit it, Steve. Again, the abortion plane story at Notre Dame made INTERNATIONAL news for weeks and weeks. WHY did you choose not to write about it? Was it really just because there was another angle to the story you were focusing on? Did it really have nothing to do with not appreciating the work of Gregg Cunningham?
Jill:
Feministe did a reaction thing.
They kept it classy, going on about how they hope Pouillon gets a beat down in the media. Click the category “Abortion” and you can read their super-awesome post on how they hope that the mother- suffered.
Yeah, nice people, those pro-choicers.
But you can read that if you want a bigoted look on a sort of neutral article.
:)
Enough, Jill. This has moved past lies and shoddy reporting to libel and false witness. You are doing an incredible disservice to the pro-life movement and providing a terrible witness to Christ with these baseless attacks.
I’ve proven you wrong on every count. You said I opposed the use of graphic images, and I’ve proven you were wrong. You implied we didn’t provide coverage of activist protests and I’ve proven you were wrong. You said we didn’t cover graphic pictures and I’ve proven you were wrong. You said we didn’t cover GAP and I’ve proven you were wrong.
Let’s tackle the latest fantasy…
The Pro-Life Action League? From Google: Results 1 – 100 of about 152 from lifenews.com for pro-life action league. Good grief, Jill, we covered them repeatedly just this month! http://www.lifenews.com/state1635.html
Operation Rescue and the truth trucks? Results 1 – 100 of about 330 from lifenews.com for operation rescue. We covered them TODAY. http://www.LifeNews.com/state4505.html
The Center for Bioethical Reform? It took me five seconds to find links like http://www.lifenews.com/nat4698.html and http://www.lifenews.com/state1635.html that mention them. I’ve already posted several of the many stories we’ve done on student groups using their GAP project.
We have covered the kinds of groups that employ graphic pictures. I’ve linked to our numerous news stories. Now I get these conspiracy theories.
LifeNews.com strongly supports and appreciates the work of every non-violent pro-life group no matter how much you want to try to pit certain organizations or people against us in some sort of public feud.
I have no beef with Gregg Cunningham. If he has a problem with me I welcome him to come to me privately as a brother in Christ so we can resolve it. I’ve never spoken ill of Gregg and never would and wish him the best with his work and that of CBR.
I wrote 89 news stories on the Notre Dame incident, so yes, I was a little busy to cover every single little thread regarding what happened. Since you accuse me of only covering graphic picture sidebars, I find it curious how insistent you are about this Notre Dame sidebar.
And yes, we were a little focused on the main news story — not that a group flew a plane over Notre Dame but the actual story itself.
The main story at Notre Dame was Obama, his pro-abortion position, honoring him, a Catholic school betraying its Church’s pro-life values, the reaction from the bishops and the students and the alumni. LifeNews.com hit those out of the park and very few news outlets came even close to us on this. No, LifeNews.com didn’t cover every single little sidebar that accompanied that but why do you feel the need to attack us on that point?
Surely you have better targets today. Why no reporting on the Guttmacher report the media is using to argue for abortion on a global scale? We’re on three news articles already with more to come. Instead, it’s all this garbage about us not covering someone’s airplane.
If you want to write about graphic pictures all day every day, please be my guest. But quit misrepresenting bout me and LifeNews.com.
If you have complaints about me, be a Christian and bring them up privately. But these kinds of downright hateful remarks help no one.
*Grabs a bag of popcorn and a soda and sits back to watch Jill & Steve argue* Amusing :)
In the mean time, my(usually) favorite show, Law&Order :SVU is doing it again! Tonight’s episode involves the murder of an abortionist(a woman), and there has been mention of “The murder of that doctor in his own church this summer”(that was a line by the actor playing the murder victim’s husband). L&O continues to make Pro-Lifers AND Christians look like ‘lunatics’. I keep saying I’m not going to watch anymore,yet I keep watching,because I’m hooked on the show! I know..I’m mad at MYSELF too.
Pamela- I love that show! In season five, there’s an episode called “Choice” (yeah, I memorize these things?- want the ratings share?) that’s staunchly pro-life. It starts out infuriating enough- typical pro-lifer who just wants to hurt his wife and abuse her. But then it gets pro-life.
Watch it! :)
Ouch.
Don’t tell Jill, but we covered the Pro-Life Action League today:
Planned Parenthood Uses Scare Tactics to Expand Aurora, Illinois Abortion Biz
Rachel C., 4:37p: Yes, I agree, the debate gets pathetic. It’s difficult for me to stop, wanting to make my point understood. Therefore…
Steve, I have to think you’re purposefully missing my point. Furthermore, sarcasm is not helpful.
Covering PLAL in its fight against Aurora PP is not a “gotcha.” Covering PLAL when it conducts its Truth Tours via an objective news story on its own merit would make a good gotcha. Covering CBR the next time it takes GAP to a college campus via an objective news story on its own merit would make a good gotcha. I look forward to those sorts of gotchas.
Jill, nice try, but you didn’t change your story until after I exposed your claim that we don’t cover PLAL.
* “The … Pro-life Action League …perform great service to the pro-life movement, yet you shut out reporting on their work – because you don’t agree with what they do.”
You made a mistake in claiming we do not cover graphic photos or groups that use them. I corrected you. Now, you’re deliberately misrepresenting the coverage of LifeNews.com.
You claimed we do not report on PLAL, period. Not that we don’t cover them in certain instances but that we “shut them out” and don’t agree with what they do.
However, as your readers can clearly see, we reported on them frequently and did so today. But, when shown that you misrepresented LifeNews.com, now you’ve changed your tune and claim we’re not providing the type of coverage you prefer.
Sorry, Jill, but this is libeous, and I think your attempt to backtrack and change the story means you know it, too.
You should be a little less concerned about my sarcasm and a little more focused on offering the kind of retracton and apology that any credible journalist would have given long ago.
Jill, just apologize so we can move on. There is no need for this to continue and it detracts from the pro-life reporting you and I need to do.
You both are acting childish! And Jill, you’re so determined to get your point accross that you’re not listening to Steve & Steve, you’re so determined to prove you’re right, that you’re not listening to Jill, nor realizing she apologized to you & publicly corrected herself in the post.
Rachael,
Please help me see where Jill apologized. I don’t see that. She corrected her post but it is still false.
“I wondered if they would acknowledge the piece since both, the last I knew, opposed the use of graphic photos of aborted babies in pro-life advocacy [clarification: in public protests].”
That is not true Rachael. I do not oppose the use of graphic photos in public protests. I think there are a ton of better signs I would use but I don’t oppose the use of graphic photos.
I guess I don’t see what is so “childish” about not wanting someone to misrepresent me and my work and wanting them to apologize for doing so. Maybe if someone was saying things about you that were false your ire would be raised, too.
This is the lamest conversation I’ve ever read.
GUYS, YOU’RE ON THE SAME SIDE. HUG AND MAKE UP. Geeze! :(
Okay Rachael, since you jumped in, I guess I will too.
As I see it, Jill and Steve have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the use of graphic images of aborted fetuses in public protests.
As mentioned in an earlier comment, the use of this imagery and the election of the most “pro-death” President in the history of the U.S. is bringing the abortion issue back into the forefront of the American consciousness. Satan, PP and the rest of the baby-killing crowd would much prefer to keep the mutilated bodies of their victims “out of sight and out of mind” so that they can continue their genocidal slaughter of the innocents unhindered and perhaps secure funding from the U.S. Government.
Steve and Jill’s disagreement lies in the “responsible use” of graphic imagery. Steve is very concerned about the “collateral damage” caused by the public display of gory pictures when they are inevitably seen by children, post-abortive moms or others more readily offended by the images. Jill accepts these unintended negative consequences as an unfortunate yet necessary reality in the Battle for Life.
It is not unlike the debate over whether or not the U.S. should have used the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Words cannot describe the heart-wrenching tragedy of the estimated 140,000 and 80,000 deaths caused by these bombs. On the other hand, their use made a ground invasion of Japan unnecessary which would have caused an estimated 1 million Allied casualties and Japanese casualties in the millions.
We live in a fallen world. As much as we’d like to isolate our children from negative influences, when they periodically see things that they shouldn’t we have to use those incidents as teaching opportunities to prepare them for adulthood. Post-abortive moms are not alone when it comes to the need to forgive ourselves for past transgressions. Like all of us, we need to remain mindful of the cleansing power of the precious Blood of Christ. Our old man was crucified with Him, we are new creatures in Christ and He gives us His Grace to use our past experiences to bring healing and comfort to the hurting world around us.
To put it into perspective then, abortionists murder more children in the U.S. than all of the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki every three months!
Steve, I believe that it would be irresponsible not to show these images during public protests. It would be a dereliction of our sacred duty to wage spiritual war against satan and the pro-death crowd for the protection and safety of the most weak and vulnerable among us.
Are there going to be people that whine and complain and make threats? You bet! In fact, that is one of the best indications that you’ve “hit a nerve” in the Kingdom of Darkness. I wish we could air an hour long special every quarter on national TV, in primetime, (maybe after 10 PM) that would explicitly show the brutality and horrific nature of abortion.
We owe it to the over 300,000 babies in America that will be slain.
Why do we care so much about the opinion of someone who is more concerned about their offended sensibilities than they are the butchered child in the picture?
Satan is hiding behind a white lab coat, a medical degree and a sign that says, “Women’s Health Clinic” and he is killing America’s children by the thousands every day and victimizing and tormenting their mothers.
When are we as a country going to wake up?
When are we as a country going to wake up?
answer: “America Will Not Reject Abortion Until America Sees (graphic imagery of) Abortion.”
– the good Padre Pavone
I’m sorry, but the back and forth is way over the top, and embarrassing. Is it April 1st or something?
Please, let it go- and TALK to eachother.
Ed, thank you for explaining their differing beliefs, although I disagree with your conclusion.Thank you, Mary Ann, that’s what I’ve been trying to say.
Hey Rachael C,
I took a stab at it anyway. That is what I seemed to gather from their comments back and forth.
Just curious, what did you disagree with? A graphic presentation on national TV? The whole satan / kingdom of darkness concept?
Well, I was finally able to spend a good chunk of time reading through the comments at the NYT last night.
One big take-away for me was how often abortion supporters cited abortion as a remedy for poverty.
I would reduce this thinking as ‘better off dead than poor’. Killing the offspring of the poor to end poverty is ineffective. And truly offensive. Why target only the fetuses among us? Why not try going through the streets of my working poor neighborhood with the ‘better off dead than poor’ message?
I think pro-lifers would be wise to highlight the idea behind this position, how ultimately classist and cruel it is.
Dontcha know Mary Ann-Abortion was supposed to cure all societal ills. Poverty, child abuse and neglect!! Why stop at a poor fetus? Why not gun down all poor people and put them out of their misery??
By that standard Obama most likely would have been aborted.