It can be argued that Planned Parenthood does not need a communications department, because there are plenty in the news media who are willing to promote the organization, free of charge, and without charging for overtime.
As if I needed another reminder, I recently ran head-first into another case of blatant media bias when it comes to the abortion giant known as Planned Parenthood.
The Scranton Times-Tribune this week ran a glowing endorsement of Planned Parenthood in an op-ed piece entitled, “Trained, ready to fight for freedom of choice.”
The author, Laura Quinones, spoke of her unbridled support of Planned Parenthood, including her enthusiasm for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s “largest volunteer training in history,” which took place in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This training, the activist writes, was to “make a difference in the 2016 elections and beyond.”
She further spoke of “reproductive rights” being “under attack,” and touted both the Roe v. Wade decision and abortion.
It occurred to me that this column screamed out for a response—especially given the fact that the newspaper’s home city, Scranton, was once dubbed the “pro-life capital of the U.S.”
I penned a letter to the editor making the following points:
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
1.) some gravely important facts were missing from the op-ed;
2.) the abortion giant performed more than 327,000 abortions in fiscal year 2014—a rate of one abortion every 90 seconds;
3.) a series of undercover videos have shown high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials blithely discussing the proposed sale of baby body parts while eating salad and sipping wine;
4.) Planned Parenthood receives $500 million taxpayer dollars a year while showing a complete unconcern for the health of women inside their mothers’ wombs.
An editor rejected my letter? Why? I hadn’t addressed what the columnist had said in her column, I was told.
But I had taken on the column head-on–noting its glaring omission of key facts—facts that could arguably change a person’s view of Planned Parenthood. Sometimes omission is a greater sin than commission, and I felt it was clearly true in this case.
The editor’s response to my retort was that abortions account for “3 percent of (Planned Parenthood’s) medical services.” That is an accurate regurgitation of a Planned Parenthood talking point. But it is incredibly misleading, since PPFA arrives at the figure by counting every STD test, every packet of pills given out, and even a woman’s initial pregnancy test as a separate service, even though these may all be bundled and sold together as part of the abortion.
And, oh by the way, abortion is PPFA’s largest profit center.
Perhaps this explains why Roe v. Wade has been able to survive for so long and why more than 58 million preborn babies have perished since the tragic 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The general public is shielded from the facts about abortion and Planned Parenthood by a news media that are willing to defend the abortion operation and its grisly trade at all costs, including balanced and comprehensive coverage of a controversial issue.
When I went to Northwestern, I was taught that journalism was a profession that was ennobled because it was dedicated to a pursuit of the truth. But the truth is absent in editorial pages that fail to include hard and fast abortion statistics and opt instead to present a pristine cheerleading piece about an entity that takes the lives of more children than any other, while ignoring the searing pain of women who mourn their dead babies.
No wonder the newspaper business is dying. They might have had 327,000 more subscribers, but Planned Parenthood aborted them—news the newspapers were not willing to print.