Accuracy in Media

Vox seems to think that it’s children who will pay the price of abortion not being widely available. Well, it’s a view, although we’d suggest that more potential children would get a chance to be children. But this is a subject where views do indeed differ. Although differing this much we find surprising:

“Instead, the U.S. seems on the brink of revoking the federal right to abortion, outlawing abortions in the states that are least capable of supporting any uptick in births. Families and children will pay the price.”

They really do mean this too.

“The end of Roe will mean more children living in poverty.”

That’s their headline. It could well be true too. But their assumption is that we’ll all be entirely persuaded by the “poverty” while there are those who might be more persuaded by the “living”. This is, after all, a subject where there is a certain amount of disagreement out there.

“Almost half the United States is ready to outlaw abortion, if given a green light by the Supreme Court, something it’s expected to do in the next few months. But many of those states are not willing to give new babies and their families the educational, medical, or financial support they need to lead a healthy life. That could leave tens of thousands of future children unnecessarily disadvantaged and living in poverty.”

That really is the argument being put forward. Life at the lower end of the richest large society the world has ever seen is such a dismal fate that it would be better not to have to suffer it. It does indeed seem logical enough that the absence of abortion will lead to more children and yet, and yet “More children could end up living in poverty, their households struggling to pay for bare necessities.” and then there’s even this “Research suggests their parents will be less likely to purchase items that help with the child’s development, and they may struggle to hit early milestones compared to their peers in other states.”

Just to hammer this home:

“It’s common for anti-abortion advocates to argue that eliminating abortion protects the lives of children. But without increases in their welfare spending, many states set to revoke abortion rights will create harmful conditions for children, limiting their access to necessities like food, and the opportunities created by education.”

As we say, this is a subject where opinions differ. But this is getting very close to better dead than poor. Which is something that will come as a great surprise to those who have grown up poor of course.

Vox markets itself as “explaining the news” which is a noble intention. It ranks just inside the top 100 of American media sites, gains some 20 million visits a month from doing so. We do tend to think that “explaining” is better done by factual referrals rather than imposing the journalists’ value judgments.

There’s also the consideration of that value judgment as well. Better Red than dead, better dead than Red was argued over for many a decade. Better dead than possibly poor seems an extreme decision.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

Comments are turned off for this article.