If someone is claiming that leftist masters orchestrated this lack of coverage - and someone may indeed be claiming it – it’s not me.
I endorse the more benign theory that was neatly summarized in the Slate article:
There’s no master authority waving a wand. It’s just the general outlook and sensibilities of the vast majority of national political reporters and commentators, who seize on Trayvon Martin’s death because it fits a narrative, and dismiss this story because it really doesn’t.
You’re right; you never claimed there was a vast, intentional conspiracy and it was wrong of me to imply you had. I apologize.
But I still disagree with you, and I don’t feel that the evidence points to your conclusion. I think the MSM is afraid (for lack of a better term) of the right wing, and is too quick to concede their points. I think there were a lot of reasons this story wasn’t more widely reported, and while an aversion to talking about abortions (as opposed to say, abortion doctors) was probably a factor, it’s my opinion that it was neither the main factor, nor a significant driving force. I think the story is gross, and doesn’t offer much room for discussion or speculation.
I think if they were truly liberal, they would have reported it with a leftist slant, rather than ignoring it or reporting it straight. All the pro-choice people I know see this story as supporting our view or not being applicable to the debate; it isn’t a story they’ve shied away from. And now that it *is *being reported, all the coverage is done with lots of concessions to pro-life people and their viewpoints; hardly evidence that the media is liberal.
In the sense that the media only reports stories they can fit into a certain narrative, however, I agree with you. I think the media is lazy and greedy, but not particularly liberal or conservative.
I don’t really know that coverage has been low. But let’s say say that’s true, and that it’s true because of not fitting a narrative.
I think that’s a legitimate reason for less coverage. If, God forbid, another quite similar case surfaces, that one will probably get more coverage because it will start looking like there’s a trend here, rather than the Gosnell situation being one-of-a-kind.
Why is the Boston tragedy such big news? In part, because of frequent similar reports from other nations. And, even more, because of 9/11. Being part of a larger story, with a past and likely, alas, a future, makes it more important.
Fair enough. Gosnell’s “patients”, I believe, said they went to him to get away from protesters, but I’ll acknowledge this was not the only and may not have been the primary motivation.
No, ma’am. They never do, really.
But, benign neglect works for American/Terrestrial colonies.
In yesterday’s testimony they had a legitimate abortion provider explain how it should be done: in a hospital for abortions after 14 weeks with a professional anesthesiologist present.
Sounds like a good basis for regulating abortion practices.
Where is your cite for this? Are you referencing Dr. Charles Benjamin? The articles I see all are saying 17 weeks and he does it in a hospital, nothing about an anesthesiologist being present. The doctor does say that either he or a nurse anesthetist is the person who gives the anesthesia while patients are in his clinic.
Benjamin, who testified he has performed 40,000 abortions over 30 years, said he never performs abortions on women pregnant more than 21 weeks, and those he does are done in a hospital with full medical services available.
Benjamin said he performs abortions up to 17 weeks in a clinic and up to 14 weeks in his personal office.
Benjamin said he has an anesthesiologist or nurse-anesthetist assisting in hospital or clinical abortions. He said he uses a registered nurse to help in office abortions performed with local anesthetics.
Okay, so after 17 weeks in a hospital. Still, reasonable basis for regulation reform. Planned Parenthood’s standards should be nationwide standards.
I’d be ok with that.
I’m not in favor of regulation. Nor am I opposed to regulation. “Regulation” is simply too broad a term for me to take a stand on. In the context of abortion, it gives rise to (inadvertent and otherwise) equivocation when antis say “I just want to regulate it” when what they mean is “a left-handed chiropractor must be in the room at all times” (not a strawman; deliberate hyperbole). Planned Parenthood strives for a balance between safe abortions and being able to carry out the procedure in the first place. If they hold themselves to higher standards than the law holds them to – and I can’t imagine you’d say they do if not – I would have no problem with those standards being put into law.
I agree with all of this. I want abortions to be legal and SAFE; that’s why I’m pro-choice.