If you’re a woman who believes in limits on abortion and you don’t favor same-sex marriage, you’re not a real woman, according to The Washington Post. That’s the essence of a Post story about the new British Prime Minister Theresa May, “Women question feminist values of Britain’s next leader.”
Theresa May has “backed calls to reduce the time limit on abortion.” She says she “does not like same-sex marriage.” That’s why feminists question her feminist credentials.
One reads a story like this and wonders if the editors of the paper even realize how biased this account actually is.
Perhaps the bias is second nature. Perhaps one must be a feminist to work at the paper and so there is nobody in a position to question the bias that is accepted in a matter-of-fact manner.
According to this treatment of the issue, a woman who favors the rights of the unborn and the idea that a woman should marry a man is out of touch with “feminist values.” There was a time when man-woman marriage and motherhood were considered sacred in this country.
This feminist advocacy piece is full of loaded terms like “women’s groups.” That means feminist. Sophie Walker of the Women’s Equality Party is quoted as saying that she doesn’t think Theresa May is in touch with the “experiences” of women. By contrast, the story says Hillary Clinton has a “long track record in standing up for women’s rights.” That means lesbian rights and abortion on demand.
What about the rights of the women sexually molested or assaulted by her husband Bill Clinton? Somehow, that part of the story got left out.
Later in the piece, the Post writer, Karla Adam, admits that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher “bristled at the idea of being labeled a feminist” and once declared, “I owe nothing to women’s lib.” It was a reminder that a woman can in fact be a conservative. Yet, in the overall piece, the tone was that the only women who count are feminists who favor aborting children and lesbian rights.
Meanwhile, the Post reports that a newborn baby was discovered in a backyard in Indiana, and the infant’s placenta and umbilical cord were covered in maggots. At least the baby was allowed to be born.
It’s been called “Miracle Baby Jane Doe.” It’s a miracle in this era of abortion on demand, for any and all reasons, including convenience, that the baby lived.
It appears that the mother won’t be part of the “Shout Your Abortion” campaign that has been highlighted by the paper. One “feminist” was quoted as saying, “I have a good heart and having an abortion made me happy in a totally unqualified way. Why wouldn’t I be happy that I was not forced to become a mother?”
Was she “forced” to get pregnant? Or was she a sexually promiscuous female without regard for the human life being created inside her?
The Post even provided a link for women to submit stories about their proud abortions. That made the author of the piece, Caitlin Gibson, a feature writer at The Washington Post, complicit in facilitating abortion advocacy. But that’s no problem for the Post.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party has approved strong pro-life language for its 2016 platform.
But according to Post writers Ed O’Keefe and Dan Balz, that means the GOP has adopted a “staunchly conservative” position on abortion.
Have you ever heard the Post refer to a “staunch feminist” or a “staunch” advocate of abortion? I didn’t think so.
Not to be outdone, The New York Times headlines how the GOP platform is going “far to the right.” It, too, used the term “staunchly conservative.” But there’s more. The paper says the new platform “amounts to a rightward lurch even from the party’s hard-line platform in 2012…”
Let’s list all of these terms meant to depict Republicans as extremists: staunchly conservative, rightward lurch and hard-line.
We have come to expect this kind of bias, day in and day out. Still, it’s worthwhile to highlight a few of the examples of the propaganda that journalism has become.