2022 sees columns of sunlight shine on the dismal parade of death that has been marched by generations of U.S. abortionists and their media cultists.
But many members of that same media are wont to depict the news properly.
Take the abortion-genuflecting words of Boston25 News’ Bob Dumas, in his December 30 attack on New Hampshire, one of numerous states that saw the enactment of pro-life statutes at the start of year.
Reading Dumas’ biased screed, one might get the impression that the NH legislature was imposing a Puritanical despotism reminiscent of what Arthur Miller threw into his propaganda play, “The Crucible.”
In the very first line of his piece, Dumas takes the side of abortionists – abortionists who deviously portray themselves as the defenders of freedom when they embrace utterly inconsistent positions about which human beings will be “protected by the government.”
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
In 2021, 19 states added more than 100 restrictions to abortion access, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
The aforementioned Guttmacher Institute being an anti-life “institute” originally formed in 1968 as a splinter organization by its birth-mother: Planned Parenthood.
Is Dumas’ piece a news report, or a PR piece promoting the agenda of Guttmacher and PP?
That first sentence, above, gives the reader a clear impression.
And he wanders on:
New Hampshire is one of them. A new law goes into effect there on January 1.
The Family Life Protection Act was written into the state budget earlier this year and was signed by Governor Chris Sununu. The new law will ban abortions after 24 weeks. While it includes an exception for the life and health of the mother, it doesn’t for the fetus.
See if you can suss that last line.
After that 24 week threshold, the new law doesn’t provide for a legal exception to murdering the fetus, even if the health or life of the fetus is in jeopardy?
In other words, the statute doesn’t let an adult kill the fetus in order to…protect the fetus?
Gosh. How else can the health or life of a fetus be completely protected unless the life of the fetus can be taken by a so-called doctor?
If you’re gob-smacked by the revolting stupidity of that “reportage,” hold on, tight. The inverted ride has just begun.
’To be clear, an abortion ban is dangerous,’ said Kayla Montgomery of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. ‘It’s the first abortion ban in modern New Hampshire history.’
Right. Banning the willful taking of another human life after that person has been alive for six months is, in the words of Montgomery, “dangerous.”
Montgomery says reproductive freedom is facing a crisis nationally and is taken aback. New Hampshire is now joining states like Texas and Mississippi by rolling back access.
‘It’s surprising because New Hampshire has a long bipartisan tradition of supporting privacy, particularly when it comes to personal medical decisions,’ added Montgomery. ‘This flies in the face of Granite State values.
Far be it from me, a guy who grew up in New Hampshire, to question her assumption to define “Granite State values.”
And far be it from any sentient person to ask even a whispered question about what “privacy” has to do with exterminating another person.
Does that mean it’s okay to kill someone in a locked room, in “private”?
This kind of “posing as journalism” and “posing as ethics” by Dumas and Montgomery would not be so breathtaking if, at least, these characters in the never-ending death play would offer some kind of consistency.
But, by promoting the idea of “bipartisanship” they imply their acceptance of the “touchy-feely” political process. They imply their acceptance of statutes being written by politicians to be enforced by the state. As I have noted to students in ethics classes, this means that they promote the existence of the state as a so-called protection force: the idea that government-run police and courts can arrest and prosecute people in order to protect other people – all of which is to be paid by tax-slaves.
Yet these people who support the existence of the state to supposedly protect human beings from aggression are selective about which human beings are to be protected by said government.
They will not acknowledge that fetuses are, by definition, individually human — with distinct DNA that is, upon conception, distinct from both parents — and that, like all of us, fetuses are BEING – on the great arc of life that automatically runs from conception to natural demise.
Do these proponents of police and judges — and taxes to support them — believe all human beings are to be “protected”? Or are there exceptions?
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment orders states to uniformly protect all citizens, not pick and choose.
If one believes the government exists to protect people from others, then that belief has to be consistent.
These promoters of death don’t like that idea.
Curiously, it’s obvious, in a supposed “news report” about New Hampshire, from a Boston televisions station.
LifeNews Note: P. Gardner Goldsmith writes for the Media Research Center, where this originally appeared.