Don't expect any "balanced" coverage or anything that comes even close to covering the other side of the story. You see the word "choice" and the "it's my own body" mantra repeating themselves over and over, but there's not a word about the baby's body that gets destroyed in abortion; let alone - that by that gestational age, the baby already has a beating heart and can feel pain. They mentioned a woman having to go on a 26-hour bus ride to get an abortion - without explaining why she had to go all the way to London, ON when (according to their own map,) abortions are available at a local hospital in Thunder Bay. (Was that a late term abortion? Or was the waiting list too long? We can be sure however that there was no medical condition requiring such an intervention - otherwise the paper would be quick to mention that.)
Then they talk about "anti-abortion protesters carrying placards reading “Let Babies Live.”" - as if the women who enter the clinic are forced to run the gauntlet. Ingrid Peritz spent some 3 hours in the abortuary that day, so she should have seen for herself, how peaceful and civilized the protesters are and how little are their chances to approach anyone, because the protesters are on a sidewalk, while the patients drive right into the fenced parking lot where they are surrounded by the escorts the moment they step out of the car. Ms. Peritz doesn't find it necessary to mention those details.
Instead, she talks about an "anti-abortion supporter" who took over the building next door. That building, by the way, happens to be the Mother and Child Welcome Centre where pregnant women could receive counseling and find information about alternatives to abortion. But out of everything Peter had a chance to tell Ms. Peritz she only quotes his statements against abortions and in favor of the restrictions. The expression "pro-life" is never used; not even in quotation marks.
Neither does Ms. Peritz ask the question why would a woman want to drive for a few hours, to another province, just to get rid of the baby she considers to be "unwanted". Not sure if Peter even had a chance to tell her about lack of education on fetal development. (Not to mention the school board policies, according to which the "Watch Me Grow" brochure is unacceptable as "too graphic" or "too politicized", but a foul-mouthed speaker who tells students that abortion "takes about five minutes, and then you go home, you're fine" is welcomed as an "expert on sexuality".) Not sure if Ms. Peritz was even interested to know all that when she was writing about the public opposition and the "stigma surrounding abortion".
Finally, what about the women who had abortions and regret them now? (I heard they did interview Anita, the woman who had the "I regret my abortions" sign...) Believe it or not, that too is not there. All the article is about is abortion access, how women want more abortion access and how those "conservative minded" protesters, politicians and healthcare workers deny women the above-mentioned abortion access. As for the reasons people may have against expanding the industry that "empowers" women by ripping their "unwanted" babies into pieces...
Well, they did put a picture of a few people with the "Let babies live" signs - what else do you want from a staunchly left wing newspaper?
P.S. Yep, that guy in the black shirt and the beige rain jacket is me. The orange spot actually reads "Abortion kills a person", but it can't be seen from that far. Oh, well, at least the "Let babies live" sign is almost legible.
No comments:
Post a Comment