By: John Moor
During the vice presidential debate, J.D. Vance said that when conservatives in his home state of Ohio voted to pass a constitutional amendment that enshrined abortion as a right, he became aware of the public’s lack of trust in Republican leadership on this issue. While this may be the case, there is another reason that conservatives have shifted their view on abortion. Almost all media outlets have stopped including any mention of the human life in the womb. Over the last 50 years, this has slowly convinced people that there is only one person involved in the abortion decision. By remaining silent on facts and reasoning that support the existence of another human being, media outlets have persuaded their audience that there is no other perspective worth considering.
For decades, most media outlets have concentrated their reporting on the effects that pregnancy and abortion have on the mother. They consistently talk about “reproductive rights”, self-autonomy and women’s healthcare. By eliminating the preborn baby from the conversation, people have stopped considering when human life begins and when it should be protected. The humanity of the preborn baby is the central issue in the whole abortion debate and yet the media consistently neglect to address it. This is the core issue because it is the sole point of contention between pro-life and pro-abortion advocates. The pro-life movement believes in self-autonomy and healthcare availability for every person (including preborn children), but abortion advocates only talk about applying this to pregnant women. The conflict revolves around whether a child in the womb has any rights at all or are they just another piece of property that can be disposed of for any reason. By treating the preborn baby as property, they are being treated the same as Black people prior to the 14th Amendment which is a shameful aspect of American history. In pre-Civil War America, the location of a Black person determined whether they were a person with a right to life or property with no rights. For the 156 years since the 14th Amendment was ratified, no court or legislature has developed a standard for defining who qualifies as a person under the 14th Amendment which is based on their own innate characteristics. The legal standard has been any human between the time of birth and death, but birth is an event, it is not a characteristic of the person like death when organs stop functioning. The only change that occurs during birth is the location of the child and there is no precedent for denying the right to life based on location.
This has resulted in a double and contradictory set of values. If the mother wants the baby, then the public is horrified if another person comes along and ends that baby’s life (for example, by giving the mother Mifepristone). There is a cry for justice for the life that was lost. So, laws were created to punish those who do this. But if the mother does not want the baby, then other people are allowed to come and end that life. The only difference in these two scenarios is whether the mother wants the baby. There is no other instance in our society where we allow a second person to unilaterally end the life of another person without due process.
Another reason the media is silent on the child in the womb is so they can emphasize any restrictions on the rights of the mother. To amplify this theme, the media is fixated on talking about rare cases where a hospital is slow to treat a pregnant woman because they don’t have clear policy under the law. Defining policy always takes a while when a new standard for healthcare is legislated but it is not justification for ignoring the issue of protecting human life in the womb. This type of reporting plays to people’s dislike of restricting a person’s rights. No one likes to be told they cannot do something, but people will accept it if it is fair and protects others. The media should foster a debate over an appropriate compromise between the rights of the mother and the rights of the preborn child but they know this will lead to restrictions on abortion so they choose to ignore it.
Another tactic used to convey a prejudicial view without looking biased, is to use terms which appear correct but have a negative connotation. For example, some outlets refer to a ban on abortion in pro-life states. The definition of ban is to prohibit something but the implication is that there are no exceptions. The reality is that no state “bans” all abortions and every state has some restrictions on abortion. Pro-life states limit abortion to when it is needed, while pro-abortion states allow it when it is “wanted”. The courts and legislatures are still working through a definition of “needed” based on the ethical considerations when two lives are involved. This debate is needed and should be allowed to be fully vetted, but the pro-abortion groups don’t want this debate to be public, or continue, because it counters their main ideology that the abortion decision involves only one person.
Also, the media finds it easier to remain silent on the child in the womb by using pro-abortion sources. The presence of Planned Parenthood in abortion articles is ubiquitous. Their dominance in the abortion industry makes them a valid source for some information, but since they make millions of dollars by providing abortions, they are highly motivated to increase the number of abortions by focusing on only one of the lives involved in abortion. Also, articles frequently include interviews with pro-abortion OB doctors who have concerns about treating the mother but there is no mention of the OB doctor’s obligation to treat both of their patients (mother and baby). Interviewing a pro-life OB doctor would provide a different perspective that balances the needs of both the mother and the child.
It is critical that conservatives realize that this indoctrination from the media is taking place because referendums to support abortion are on the ballot in 10 states this year. These ballot measures are not compromises which balance the rights of the baby to live versus the rights of the mother. These ballot measures allow abortion the full 9 months of the pregnancy based on the physical, mental or emotional health of the mother. This can only be supported if voters believe the human life in the womb has no rights at all. Conservatives should think carefully before supporting abortion amendments that enable radical abortion policies. Different amendments and laws can be crafted which do a better job of protecting mothers and the human life within them, instead of the current amendments which support extreme left-wing policies. Voters should review the facts of human development and consider when human life should be protected based on its own innate and immutable characteristics, and the ethics involved in the decision to end a human life as compared to the wellbeing of the mother. If this does not seem necessary, then try listing all the reasons that the human life in the womb is not a person, with some rights to protection from harm, before voting “Yes” on one of these amendments.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.