Dateline MSNBC ran a show Wednesday night talking about the 10th anniversary of the world's only septuplets (7 children born at once.) Dateline has been following the McCaughey family and the parents Bobbi and Kenny since the children were born and how they have been doing all these years.

The story is mostly positive, upbeat and fast-moving as they focus on each child and what their interests are etc..

Two of the seven children were born with cerebral palsy and have had some struggles in learning how to walk correctly. They struggled in a particular way with daughter Alexis, however, both children are on the road to walking independently and seemed to be doing rather well displaying that enthusiasm for life that children have.

Then the reporter, Ann Curry, drops this bomb on the parents:

Ann Curry: Knowing now where Alexis is, do you feel any regret about your decision to carry all seven babies?

Bobbi: How could I? Look at Alexis. There's not a person in this world who loves being alive more than she does. How could I feel sorry that I had all of my children?

Kenny: The answer will be the same from now until 100 years. We don't regret it at all.

I give kudos to Bobbi and Kenny for not reaching out and strangling Ms. Curry for asking one of the most insensitive questions you could possibly ask somebody.

Her question does not reflect the reality of the situation that the McCaugheys find themselves in, after all they met at Bible college, are devout Baptists and believe in the sanctity of life.

Her question instead reflects the inability of the media to come to grips with the fact that this family long ago decided that the only solution to having so many children was not abortion, but that they should instead give themselves away to them.

Her question makes no sense otherwise. In a world that only sees the hardship and struggle with raising children and the difficulty that can bring, the McCaughey situation seems impossible, and so there is a tendency to see them as a "show" that needs to be promoted and talked about, because it is so different from her own worldview.

Ms. Curry cannot possibly understand how they could go through all of this, especially with disabled children, and not regret having some of them "selectively terminated," a phrase she used in the interview.

It's really sick, but the abortion mentality is strong and weighs heavily on the minds of those who are uncomfortable with the proud witness of a life devoted unselfishly to the care of others.

Labels: media bias

Time magazine has a story on Pope Benedict XVI's next encyclical and what it might contain. The proposed theme for the encyclical is on social justice but judging from the extreme reaction from members of the mainstream media and the blogging community, you would think that the Pope had mandated the elimination of capitalism.

It is one thing when uninformed, clueless members of the media get it wrong (note to Time: an encyclical is not a "doctrinal pronouncement") when referring to matters of the Church, after all they're hard-pressed to see the Church through any other lens than abortion, birth control and women priests. It is another thing when conservatives in the blogging community jump the gun just as quickly and condemn a statement that has not been even released, much less its full contents and context known, then things are really getting bad.

Note to mainstream media writers: Leave the analysis of official Church documents to those who actually know what the Church is talking about.

Note to bloggers who foolishly condemn statements not yet released by the Pope: Wait until the Pope actually releases the document before opening your mouth and inserting your foot.

Labels: media bias

A headline from the Wichita Eagle in Kansas reads as follows:

"National anti-abortion convention starts today in KC"

The headline refers to the annual conference of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Since I thought the headline might not be totally accurate, I wandered over to NRLC's web site to see how the conference was billed.

The actual title of the conference is, "35th Annual National Right to Life Convention" and it's really interesting how I could not find the words "anti-abortion" anywhere in the promotion of their conference.

I wonder where the Eagle got their headline from and why they labeled the conference incorrectly? A lady on the Wichita Eagle blog even commented on the strange mis-wording of the conference.

Labels: media bias

Just one question: If this violence is wrong, which it is, and if this crime is worthy of a news story, which it is, why is abortion legal, and why are abortions not reported in the newspaper?

Unborn baby killed in shooting 9:37 AM CT

09:57 AM CDT on Thursday, June 14, 2007

By MATTHEW HAAG and JOSH DAVIS / The Dallas Morning News
haag@dallasnews.com and jodavis@dallasnews.com

2200 block of Canton Street, Dallas

A pregnant woman’s unborn baby was shot and killed by apparent random gunfire that entered her apartment near downtown Dallas early Thursday morning, police said.

The woman was sleeping in her third-story apartment at the Camden Farmers Market complex in the 2200 block of Canton St. around 2 a.m. when she was shot at least twice in the back, killing the fetus, said her husband Santos Perez.

She was taken to Baylor University Medical Center, where she was listed in stable condition, Mr. Perez said. A person outside of the apartment, who said he was the victim’s brother-in-law, said that she “was doing fine.”

Mr. Perez said he woke to the sounds of multiple gunshots going through the French doors of his balcony and then the screams of his wife.

“I woke up because she was screaming,” he said. “I just pulled her out of the bed and onto the floor.”

Mr. Perez then called 911.

Daryl Matthews, a next door neighbor, said he heard what seemed to be around seven to eight bullets go into the couple’s apartment.

“I just heard ‘pow, pow, pow,’” Mr. Matthews said. “It sounded like he unloaded a full clip.”

Detectives believe the shots were fired from an elevated portion of North Central Expressway which runs adjacent to the apartments.

Mrs. Perez’s baby boy was due July 28, Mr. Perez said.

WFAA-TV (Channel 8) contributed to this report.

Submitted by Ellen Rossini
Catholic Pro-Life Committee Development Director

Labels: media bias

Labels: media bias

A review of the Apostolic Exhortation 'Sacramentum Caritatis' issued by the Vatican is described by the Dallas Morning News in this way (highlighted red scare words done by me):

Labels: dallas morning news, media bias

Time magazine has a long story about the work of a pregnancy support center in Asheville, NC that is, for the most part, a good read, although there are problems with it.

Interviewed for the article is Deborah Wood, CEO of the Asheville Pregnancy Support Services in Asheville NC. Ms. Wood is described as "the new face of an old movement: kind, calm, non-judgmental, a special-forces soldier in the abortion wars who is fighting her battles one conscience at a time." The article then goes on to describe the kind of work the Asheville PSS and others like it does.

The article is titled "The Abortion Campaign You Never Heard About" but the truth is that they need to title it "The Abortion Campaign We've Never Written About."

People who are kind, calm and non-judgmental have been in the movement since it began. Unfair stereotypes about how pro-lifers are depicted in the media have more to do with the bias of the reporter or the organ publishing their stories than actual experience with people really involved in the movement.

I'm glad at least one magazine media outlet has recognized that pro-lifers don't have horns coming out of their heads. Will others?

Labels: media bias

In todays Dallas Morning News, there is a shocking development. The state of Texas will actually be paying crisis pregnancy centers to counsel women who come in for assistance to not have an abortion. You can tell this is a shock to whoever put this article together by the use of scare words in the article: (scare words in red)

Texas is part of trend that has alarmed some rights activists

12:00 AM CST on Monday, February 12, 2007

From Wire Reports Los Angeles Times

AUSTIN – In an experiment that's opening a new front in the culture wars, a growing number of states are paying anti-abortion activists to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. At least eight states – including Texas, Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania – use public funds to subsidize crisis pregnancy centers, Christian homes for unwed mothers or other programs explicitly designed to steer women from abortion.

As a condition of the grants, counselors are often barred from referring women to any clinic that provides abortions; in some cases, they may not discuss contraception either.

Most states still spend far more money subsidizing comprehensive family planning, but the flow of tax dollars to anti-abortion groups has surged in recent months, as grants took effect in Texas and Minnesota.

(cut)

The trend alarms abortion-rights supporters, who say that the funds would be better spent – and would prevent more abortions – if used to expand access to birth control. But to anti-abortion advocates such as Nancy McDonald, the funding is both practical and symbolic, a way of putting the state's stamp of approval on their work.

States will spend at least $13 million this year to direct women away from abortion.

I have been trying to get the Dallas Morning News to realize that no one in the pro-life movement calls themselves an "anti-abortion advocate," yet they insist on labelling us this way. That coupled with scare words used in reference to funding a paltry amount of money ($13 million dollars through 8 states) that is going to these centers tells me that the real shock is that this is happening at all.

I am always amazed when people think that not having an abortion is harmful, but how could you come away with any other conclusion from this article?

Labels: dallas morning news, media bias

Last Sunday's Dallas Morning News (print edition) has two articles about two people who recently announced their candidacy for the Presidency in 2008. One was Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and the other was Senator Sam Brownback(R-KS).

Brownback is described as a "favorite of the religious right" who is "a fierce foe of abortion . . and opposes embryonic-stem cell research and gay marriage."

There is no indication in either article of how Mrs. Clinton feels or votes about the above listed issues. That is interesting because she has voted in favor of partial-birth abortion, has a 100% voting record from NARAL and has been endorsed by Emily's List, a pro-abortion PAC.

I wonder why the Dallas Morning News felt it was important to mention Senator Brownback's opposition to abortion but was strangely unable to mention Senator Clinton's stands on the very same issues? She even had an article twice as long as Senator Brownback's!

Update: Apparently, this is not a problem with the Dallas Morning News only.

Labels: dallas morning news, media bias, sam brownback