To move beyond abortion stalemate, reporters must ask tough questions (COMMENTARY)

Print More
Trevin Wax is managing editor of the Gospel Project and author of multiple books, including “Clear Winter Nights: A Journey Into Truth, Doubt and What Comes After.” Photo courtesy of LifeWay Media

Trevin Wax is managing editor of the Gospel Project and author of multiple books, including “Clear Winter Nights: A Journey Into Truth, Doubt and What Comes After.” Photo courtesy of LifeWay Media

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) When was the last time a reporter asked a candidate why he or she supports unrestricted abortion access in the second and third trimester, when upwards of 70 percent of Americans do not?

  • Larry

    If you can’t be satisfied with the answer, “That is a decision for a woman and her doctor”, then you will never do more than spin your wheels as has been done for the last 40 years.

    The morality of abortion is not the same issue as the legality of it. Conflating a fetus with a born child will never produce an honest argument.

    Anyone who claims Ron Paul makes sense is automatically tagged personally as a raving idiot. The man scammed the Federal government out of decades of chairwarming uselessness. Btw Paul’s idiotic version of libertarianism got ripped by Wasserman in that exchange. Evidently he likes government to be small, but big enough to fit in a womb.
    ““I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women”

  • opheliart

    Maybe Rand should focus on making men more responsible for what their penises are up to.

    No one seems to get around to shackling that wee devil.

  • Gethsemane

    There are 397,122 children that are living without permanent families in the foster care system and there are twice that many that are neglected and abused. Why is no one talking about these children that already born to unfit parents?

    Some people are just not fit to be parents, why don’t they realize this before they conceive a baby? Why can’t adults be proactive and save a life?

  • News flash: reporters are Democratic operatives with bylines. Won’t happen.

    Nor will any supposed middle ground contrived by Vichy Catholic academics be of any consequence. If you’re to have movement on this issue you need either a cultural shift among the elite bar on the question itself or a cultural shift among elected officials. The latter would not be required re the issue itself so much as on the procedural matter of tolerating misfeasance by the judiciary. A legislative restructuring of the federal courts which would involve jurisdiction stripping would go some distance toward ending their dirty fun.

  • ” twice that many that are neglected and abused. ”

    [citation needed]


    “Why is no one talking about these children that already born to unfit parents? ”

    Any county government debating appropriations for its child protective and foster care service is talking about it. You’re just not listening.

    And what’s you’re point? Some people (<1% of the total) are crummy parents ergo we slaughter 20% of the young in vitro?

  • Deacon John M Bresnahan

    Even if a few reporters sprouted some integrity, one can be sure that the biased state of today’s media would guarantee any nonsensical answers by abortion protecting politicians will be buried as deep as the completely viable babies dismembered in abortions.

  • opheliart

    Art … Does that make you uncomfortable? Holding men responsible for their half of the act? Coming from a misogynist operation like yours I can understand your unease.

  • opheliart

    Art and Co. doesn’t appear to be interested in the health, well being and SAFETY of children, Gethsemane.

  • Will T

    “Why can’t adults be proactive and save a life?”

    Good question, that’s because some harebrained adults don’t realize that one of the side effects of getting together with a mate is getting pregnant, after they get pregnant they realize, “oh shoot, I didn’t expect that … ” and get an abortion.

    As they say, karma is a bad … and she’ll get these harebrained adults in this life or the next! 🙁

  • Larry

    Riiiight, the only reason the anti-abortion crowd is not being taken seriously is because of biases reporting. Ot has nothing to do with some of the ridiculous things being said by its advocates. /sarcasm.

  • Jack

    News flash: not all reporters are Democrats.

    Don’t like the news…blame the messenger…

  • Greg

    Yes, Deacon. Abortion is a gruesome. Debbie Wasserman Shultz answered the question the way her radical financial supporters demand she answer it. She is on the end of a dog leash. She is bound to support abortion through all 9 months of a pregnancy, and beyond, or the radical feminists will cut off her funding, plain and simple.

  • Susan

    You just get more and more desperate at the blame game.

  • Susan

    Deacon Bresnahan, slagging the media doesn’t reflect well on you. Can you be more explicit about which reporters lack integrity in this present case, with evidence? If not, you should retract your remark.

  • Larry

    Except she didn’t actually say that. You are simply projecting. What she said was that the anti-abortion crowd wants government officials making personal decisions for women. Strange thing to say for an alleged libertarian.

    Bible thumpers already put fiscal conservatives on their sh11 list when they are either indifferent to abortion or support its legality. Its why we have few sane Republicans make it through GOP primaries at the national level.

  • Greg

    Larry, I watched a roundtable of liberal commentators say exactly what I said, although they were giggling at Debbie WS being squeezed by her financial supporters to keep the responses generic, and deflective. Today, a plurality of America has come to its senses about Abortion, due to crystal clear sonic imagining, and common sense. End abortion ASAP!

  • Larry

    Her response wasn’t very generic or deflective in that article being cited. What you claim to have seen is of no inherent credibility to the contrary. You are hardly an unbiased source.

  • Be Brave

    Just sterilize these women and men that support and choose abortion for their unborn offspring. Then they can be as immoral as their time permits. And they are out of the gene pool as well.

    End of issue.

    Please keep your applause to a minimum.

  • Greg

    Well I watched her interview which happened within hours after Rand Paul served up his response to that reporter. She said exactly what a good recipient of political funding from the radical left had to say: she said nothing but talking points, avoiding the direct question. And later viewing the roundtable of left skewed reporters laughing at how she handled herself, and that she had to be careful not to lose their support. But…as this country is turning more Pro-Life by the minute, these archaic holdouts of the Anti-Life agenda just just dig in their heels ever deeper. And Larry, you shouldn’t speak of lack of bias…

  • Susan

    That other Susan is not me. Most anti-abortion advocates don’t seem to care about the child after its born. They are mostly on the right and want to reduce funding for the food stamps and other programs that help poor mothers. They patronize pregnant women who want abortions and assume that they are not capable of making a decision.

    Also, reporters always miss the Jewish point of view on abortion. This is a fight among Christians. I’ve heard anti-abortion advocates talk about the “Judeo-Christian tradition even though they know nothing about the Jewish position.

  • Susan

    What Debbie Wasserman Schultz support is upholding Roe V Wade. You should all read it.

  • Actually, social research on the national press corps has demonstrated that nearly 90% vote Democratic in federal elections.

    And what counts as ‘news’ reflects the values of the media. And, of course their reporting is trusted only by Democratic operatives without bylines and by the easily gulled.

  • There are persistent and large majorities in favor of proscribing nearly all abortions that take place. Nearly all abortions are contraceptive abortions.

    That you are too crude to understand moral arguments does not invalidate moral arguments.

  • That other Susan is not me. Most anti-abortion advocates don’t seem to care about the child after its born.

    No it pleases you and is convenient for you to impugn other people’s motives.

  • If you want an example of a hopeless jurisprudential mess and an example of intellectual fraud presented you, by all means read it.

  • It does not reflect badly on him. He’s calling a spade a spade.

  • opheliart is very interested in offering malicious non sequiturs. Big bloody surprise.

  • Larry

    Hardly large majorities. Politically active and vocal groups yes, but large majorities is a gross exaggeration.

    Wouldn’t all abortions except for those due to problem births be contraceptive? You bring this up because s1ut shaming is a primary component to the anti-abortion argument. Narcissistic Bible Thumpers like wagging fingers and pretending everyone has to bow to their self-styled “moral superiority”

    And yet people like yourself want to limit access to contraceptives and promote nonsense like abstinence only programs. They also support cutting programs to provide aid to impoverished families.

    For people who claim to address the issue of abortion, the bible thumping conservatives are doing their best to avoid actually solving the problem. Abortion rates decline where people have unfettered access to it and contraception. Abortion bans never worked.

    Art, you wouldn’t understand a moral argument if it came up and bit you.

  • Larry

    Art, reality has a bias against your position.

    You guys can’t go more than a few minutes into a conversation about abortion without attacking women and their privacy.

    S1ut shaming and ignoring obvious biological facts is key to support of an anti-abortion position. There is nothing moral or rational about attacking born people to protect a fetus gestating inside them.

  • Larry

    Why not? Impugning motives are all you have done so far.

    The whole point of an anti-abortion position is to impugn the motives of pregnant women considering such options.

    It is to declare their needs and privacy to be immaterial to the bible thumping fetus worshiper, who naturally knows best as to how a woman should act.

  • Larry

    But you can’t articulate that in any coherent fashion. It makes sense to people who are willing to read more than one book in their lives.

    It falls upon a very simple and understandable rationale. The only person who keeps a fetus alive is its mother. The mother’s interests will always be greater than that of a fetus. The decision is between her and her doctor. Its her body, she has a right to privacy. Her decision as to what goes on inside it is hers and hers alone. You don’t have to like her decision, but its not your body, so it is never your decision to make.

    The anti-abortion crowd avoids this discussion with nonsense about “when life begins”, s1ut shaming, and general hysterics.

  • Susan

    No, Art, actually he is plainly attacking the messenger and misrepresenting facts, and as a “deacon”, his behavior is shameful. As is yours for supporting him.

    Shame on you, [deleted].

  • Trevin — a good post for its length. I think you uncover the action item without seeing the real problem. The average reporter is already convinced — in opposition to most Americans and the vast majority of OB-GYNs — that abortion is just a policy and not a moral issue. Or worse: they are convinced that the morality here is balanced on the people you see rather than on the people you don’t see.

    These reporters are only reporting what they want to see. A better reporter would be looking for his own blind spots. Until those people populate the media, this will never improve.

  • Greg

    As a reporter who is pro-life, I’ve long been disappointed by what passes for questioning of each side by mainstream journalists. There is indeed something of an establishment skew in the questioning – namely, you want to change something (make abortion harder to obtain), so justify it. That same adversarial line of questioning doesn’t really make it to social causes that reporters tend to support personally, like same-sex marriage and relaxed immigration policies.

  • Larry

    Do you have a source to cite for that or is it just one of many posts extracted from your posterior orifice?

  • MattA

    Conflating Ron and Rand Paul also doesn’t help. Which one are you talking about?

  • Larry

    Is there a difference between the two on this subject?

    The only difference between the 2 is how much money and time they bilked the government for. Ron obviously did so for a much longer period of time.

  • Susan

    Your belief set is clearly not “pro-life”. You are anti-abortion.

    However, by stating your employment area, you just showed the falsehood of the claims of your brethren above.

  • Kelvin

    May not be a major difference between Ron and Rand on this subject, but hard to take your name calling seriously when you don’t even appear to know who you are labeling an idiot.

  • Barry the Baptist

    How about we just mandate contraception for everyone? Then, when they want to have children, they can go off of it.

    This will eliminate abortions for everybody except for those who opt-out based on religious beliefs. Then, the only ones getting abortions will be religious people, who will actually care what all of their detractors have to say, ostensibly.

    Your applause is appreciated. Let’s give a hand to BB, who made such a cute effort.

  • Greg

    Susan, there’s more than one Greg around here. There might be three. But I am glad to see a Pro-Life person in the News Industry. That institution is almost Anti-Life across the board, with the exception of only a few. Aside from that, I have a question: why do people who proudly claim to be Pro-Abortion, make such a stink about parents who discipline their children by corporal punishment? Maybe you can clarify that for me. It has always been a stumper for me to understand.

  • Larry

    Whatever. I don’t take either Paul seriously. Their brand of libertarianism is a joke. Small non-functional government that is somehow large enough to tell woman how to make their personal decisions.

  • dmj76

    Check out the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Both are vastly popular, both Republican.

  • Susan

    I don’t think the media ignores the anti-abortion position. It goes out of its way to present both sides.

    The Catholic Church is led by celibate MEN and they are not in the best position to oppose abortion and contraception. As a matter of fact the Catholic church did not alway oppose abortion.

    If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one, but don’t deny the right of other women to follow their beliefs.

  • Susan

    Sometimes women who originally wanted a baby end up having abortions for tragic reasons. The baby is so deformed that it will not live long after its born or maybe there is a traffic accident and the women needs all her strength to recover. In Judaism the mother’s life takes priority over the fetus.

  • Susan

    You are dodging and lying.

  • Larry

    “why do people who proudly claim to be Pro-Abortion, make such a stink about parents who discipline their children by corporal punishment? Maybe you can clarify that for me.”

    Because they don’t. Maybe your parents should have beaten you more often as a child for lying so badly? 🙂

  • Pingback: Eerdmans All Over: April 24, 2015 | EerdWord()

  • Pingback: Reading List 04.27.15 | Adopted & Planted()