I glanced at some of the mainstream media coverage of the march. The mendacity of the MSM is not to be believed. ...here’s the lede on CNN.com’s “coverage” of the March:His live-blogging from the March captures the sheer size of the event. Again--I don't think I've ever been in a crowd that large before. This Washington Post commentator attended the same March I did:Abortion rights supporters and opponents hit the streets of the nation’s capital Friday to mark the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
“Abortion rights supporters and opponents.” Supporters first, opponents second, with no indication whatsoever of the relative sizes of the two groups. Nowhere in the article is there any indication whatsoever of how many of each group were present. Not even “tens of thousands” or even just “thousands” of pro-lifers. Just “Abortion rights supporters and opponents.”
...This was not a meeting or juxtaposition of two opposed demonstrations, however equal or unequal. It was a massive pro-life demonstration with a few counter-demonstrators. We were the event; they were a tiny footnote. That is simply a fact that the CNN.com piece is nakedly attempting to bury...
Ironically, even that one photographic bit of evidence from the buried CNN.com photo refutes another lie promoted by a Newsweek.com blog post, that “young women” were “missing” at the March—that “a majority of the participants are in their 60s.”
Take a gander at CNN.com’s buried picture. Who’s carrying that banner? Why ... They’re all young women! I guess CNN didn’t get the memo on the “no young women” meme.
The post does go on to indicate that the “no young women” meme is based on previous years, and that a “surge of young women” is possible this year. I was there last year too. There was no shortage of young women.
“A majority of the participants are in their 60s”? A majority? As in over half? Is Newsweek serious? If one person in 20 was in their 60s, it would be a lot. Take another look at that photo. Can you find anyone who looks like they’re probably in their 60s? If you look long and hard enough, you might find enough to count on one hand. How many can you find who look to be in their 20s or 30s? It’s like every other person...
I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn't it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What's more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn't going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future. How wrong I was...I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.And I really don't think I saw a single pro-choice protester during the March. I looked. I really expected some strong reactions this year in the wake of the Stupak Amendment, the Brown election, and the sudden crisis for the health care legislation, but all I could see was the massive tidal wave of pro-lifers unable to move at times because of the sheer number of people."We are the pro-life generation," said signs carried by the crowd, about half its members appearing to be younger than 30. There were numerous large groups of teenagers, many bused in by Roman Catholic schools and youth groups. They and their adult leaders said the youths were taught from an early age to oppose abortion...
No comments:
Post a Comment