News outlets reject pro-life ad for being “too controversial”

posted at 2:31 pm on July 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

What’s so controversial about a baby?  When Heroic Media wanted to place an ad in major newspapers like USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune to argue for a ban on late-term abortions, they didn’t include any graphic photos of aborted babies, or what abortion mills like Planned Parenthood call “products of conception” or “POCs.” Instead, it just shows a child at roughly 20 weeks gestation resting in the hand of an adult, which gives readers some badly-needed context about late-term abortions.

heroic-lg2

No problem, right? After all, our media has no trouble selling ad space for lots of pictures of babies, asleep and awake, for products from diapers to car tires to on-line investment firms.  Suddenly, though, a baby to sell the concept of protecting human life is too controversial, according to these newspapers (via Carol Platt Liebau):

A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”

The Chicago TribuneUSA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media. …

Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.

“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”

The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.

“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.

No one here will argue that these outlets have a requirement to carry these ads.  Their newspapers are their own property, and they should be allowed to choose freely on which advertisements they run.  But we are also free to reach conclusions about their political bias based on those decisions, and it’s clear that these outlets don’t want a real debate on abortion, especially late-term abortion, based on facts.  The argument that this photograph is somehow so controversial that it can’t be published in decent society is ridiculous immediately on viewing the ad. They’re not refusing it because it’s controversial — they’re refusing it because it’s effective.

Meanwhile, Scott Walker signed a bill in Wisconsin that duplicates the bill in Texas.  You know, the one that’s so controversial that 62% of Texas voters support it:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law on Friday new abortion restrictions that opponents said could lead to the closing of two of the state’s four abortion clinics.

Opponents of the law, which goes into effect Monday, July 8, filed a federal lawsuit challenging it.

The law requires women to undergo an ultrasound before they get an abortion and doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics.

“This bill improves a woman’s ability to make an informed choice that will protect her physical and mental health now and in the future,” said Tom Evenson, a spokesman for the governor.

According to Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services, which are the state’s two abortion providers, the law could prompt the closing of abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee because doctors there do not have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

If that’s a requirement for all other ambulatory surgical centers (it is in Texas, at least), then why should abortionists be exempt from it?  Or do Planned Parenthood want to argue that women undergoing abortions should be less safe than anyone undergoing a Botox treatment or a tummy tuck?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

If that’s a requirement for all other ambulatory surgical centers (it is in Texas, at least), then why should abortionists be exempt from it? Or do Planned Parenthood want to argue that women undergoing abortions should be less safe than anyone undergoing a Botox treatment or a tummy tuck?

Good Point.

workingclass artist on July 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Remember the full-page ads for Civil Rights?

John the Libertarian on July 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

We must be brave enough to confront and face this evil.

A nation that affirmatively allows its weakest and most defenseless citizens will suffer the consequences.

Abortion is murder, period.

All efforts to call it otherwise are but moral equivalences and obfuscation.

There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, and we must stop allowing caustic rulings like Roe to stand.

Let he who is so supportive of abortion subject himself to the procedure.

turfmann on July 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

The insanity of the liberal MSM. They can never admit they are wrong.

pat on July 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

They’re not refusing it because it’s controversial — they’re refusing it because it’s effective.

Truth is an awesome weapon.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 2:40 PM

So what does it take to get admitting privileges in the nearest hospital? Are these “doctors” unqualified for admitting privileges? Or is there some other reason -profit, maybe- that prevents them from attaining the necessary privileges?

One more thing: I thought healthcare regulations were a good thing…

BKeyser on July 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

The “Stop the war on children” line is retarded. But otherwise good ad.

thphilli on July 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I would respect the newspapers’ right to accept or reject any ad – in my years in the business, I had to make that call sometimes – for any reason, but usually there is a good reason to reject one. There is nothing objectionable about this ad that I can see, not that any reasonable publisher would reject – or any ad manager would bother to kick upstairs for a decision from the publisher.

They don’t mind taking ad money from Republicans in election years, but abortion isn’t politics to these people: killing babies is their religion, and they tolerate no infidels.

Adjoran on July 6, 2013 at 2:44 PM

thought healthcare regulations were a good thing…

BKeyser on July 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Just the right ones.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

If the media could get their blood-stained hands on the crime scene photos from Sandy Hook, they’d publish those in a heartbeat for Obama’s next anti-gun campaign.

The only ‘controversy’ with this ad is that some people might change their minds about abortion, what with a face attached to the proposed 20-week limitations. Liberals can’t have that, can they?

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM

The “Stop the war on children” line is retarded. But otherwise good ad.

thphilli on July 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM

It’s a back-at-cha line ‘borrowed’ from the left, who coined the term. Liberals become very irritated when their own catch phrases are used against them.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

That link from Instapundit outlines the abortion laws in each European country. ALL of them of them have laws that are significantly stricter that US laws. As Glenn suggests, maybe we should call for our abortion laws to be more European. Most Americans already oppose mid and late term abortion, but we are all smeared as “taliban” by the extremists running the country and the media.

juliesa on July 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Why can newspapers choose who to sell advertising for but photographers and bakers can’t choose who to sell their products to?

Rose on July 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Suddenly, though, a baby to sell the concept of protecting human life is too controversial, according to these newspapers (via Carol Platt Liebau):

The baby didn’t look enough like “just a clump of cells”. If they put the baby in a blender these newspapers would have been happy to run with ad. The sick part is that this is the truth.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 6, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Rose on July 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Good question.

BacaDog on July 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Ironic isn’t it? The progressive movement brings so many all too willingly into a future where some are allowed to choose who is worthy of life. Much like the Spartans of ancient Greece.
And now Planned Parenthood proclaims a prenatal Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. It is sweet and proper to die for someone else’s right to choose.

onomo on July 6, 2013 at 3:04 PM

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s the truth.”

-Breitbart

Wethal on July 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM

They’re not refusing it because it’s controversial — they’re refusing it because it’s effective.

Knowing, really knowing that what you have there is a baby, well, that’s mighty damning for a lot of folks. Especially those who murder them.

dogsoldier on July 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Why can newspapers choose who to sell advertising for but photographers and bakers can’t choose who to sell their products to?

Rose on July 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Can a newspaper legally refuse? I think a judge needs to consider that.

dogsoldier on July 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Can a newspaper legally refuse? I think a judge needs to consider that.

dogsoldier on July 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I would say they could, being private enterprises. They sell advertising space, and they have the option to choose from whom to buy. It’s the same to me as a store refusing a customer’s business if he comes in with no shirt and no shoes.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM

But I’m sure these same outlets are completely fine with women running around in giant vagina costumes, or with exploding kids in campaign commercials.

TheLoudTalker on July 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Speak up

It doesn’t look like any human I’ve ever meet. I have no more trouble with it being killed than with people eating meat.

thuja on July 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

The ad has a hint of Republican in it.They will never run anything positive about Republicans.It’s negative or nothing for those groups.Everyone should know that by now.

docflash on July 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Print them up and hand them out.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:17 PM

It doesn’t look like any human I’ve ever meet.
thuja on July 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

If you’re trying to sound like libfree with really dumb comments, you’re real close.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

thuja on July 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

You’re mentally unstable troll.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Thuja’s never seen a baby? Hmmm..That’s weird.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Thuja I’ll show you a picture of my niece who was born premature you jackass.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM

The light always outshines the darkness

faraway on July 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM

It’s bigger than a baby seal.

faraway on July 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM

If you are a woman and enjoy forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds, vote GOP.
 
lester on August 24, 2012 at 6:23 PM

 
1) What would the ultrasounds show?
 
(Hint: one word)
 
2) Why the concern if your answer from (1) isn’t going to be technically/legally killed?
 
What’s the problem?
 
Should dentists also be restricted from showing you images of the tooth they’re going to pull?
 
No scans of kidney stones?
 
What makes (1) special?
 
Go ahead. Tell us.
 
rogerb on August 24, 2012 at 9:24 PM

 
(Thread abandoned.)

rogerb on July 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM

It doesn’t look like any human I’ve ever meet. I have no more trouble with it being killed than with people eating meat.

thuja on July 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

You’re just effing with us right? Trying to be edgy, a little Far Side humour.

arnold ziffel on July 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Good link. Thanks!

My fave photo is where a doctor was doing surgery in utereo, and the baby reached up to grasp his finger.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM

It doesn’t look like any human I’ve ever meet.
 
thuja on July 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

 
+1
 
It looks like every human I’ve ever met.

rogerb on July 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM

It’s bigger than a baby seal.

faraway on July 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM

As you know , our being human is not determined by our size or looks.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM

It’s bigger than a baby seal.

And WERE it a “baby seal” Green Peace and the LSM would have been all over running such an advertisement, as it was ONLY a human “pup,” well not so much…

Thuja continues making hte Pro-Choice Movement look like John C Calhoun and the proponents of Slavery, with the humanization of the object of their hatred….

I’m sure Fredrick Douglas or Nat Turner wouldn’t have looked “human” to you either.

JFKY on July 6, 2013 at 3:37 PM

You’re just effing with us right?
arnold ziffel on July 6, 2013 at 3:33 P

Apparently you don’t know the cretin.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Thuja worries that any attempt to regulate abortion will hurt his chances at swilling *****.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Go abort your worthless “self” thuja. You vile piece of excrement.

Flange on July 6, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Man get up to 20 years for killing a kitten (felony)

The baby seems bigger than a kitten, too.

faraway on July 6, 2013 at 3:40 PM

You’re just effing with us right? Trying to be edgy, a little Far Side humour.
arnold ziffel on July 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM

That wasn’t far side humor. That was just unconscionable evil coming from the resident thug without a hint of humor.

AH_C on July 6, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Can a newspaper legally refuse? I think a judge needs to consider that.
 
dogsoldier on July 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM

 
I would say they could, being private enterprises. They sell advertising space, and they have the option to choose from whom to buy. It’s the same to me as a store refusing a customer’s business if he comes in with no shirt and no shoes.
 
Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM

 
FWIW, I think the original baker/photographer vs. newspaper quip was very astute commentary based on these:
 

A gay couple recently married in Massachusetts filed a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake for their reception. The owner of the bakery cited his Christian beliefs when he refused the couple’s business.
 
http://gawker.com/gay-couple-files-discrimination-complaint-against-color-511814443

 

The state Human Rights Commission fined Elane Photography nearly $7,000 saying the company was guilty of discrimination for sexual orientation, a decision upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June…
 
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/125575/abqnewsseeker/updated-n-m-high-court-to-hear-gay-ceremony-photo-case.html

 
A fine point btw, Rose. Nicely done.

rogerb on July 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Or do Planned Parenthood want to argue that women undergoing abortions should be less safe than anyone undergoing a Botox treatment or a tummy tuck?

More government regulations are what you’re calling for… go nanny state and big government!

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Here’s a debate for you. Who’s stupider – thuja or brayam?

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Shorter caption: “Don’t let Wendy Davis kill this baby”

faraway on July 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM

That wasn’t far side humor. That was just unconscionable evil coming from the resident thug without a hint of humor.

AH_C on July 6, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I knows it. Just trying to see how far he wanted to go with his assholism.

arnold ziffel on July 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM

More government regulations are what you’re calling for… go nanny state and big government!

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

*WHOA* up there Bayam, IF you like ObamaCare you HAVE to be on board with this…remember all those appendectomies and tonsillectomies and leg amputations, we are going to prevent thru increased regulation. Or is this merely a case of the shoe pinching the other foot?

And why do you hate Womyn so? We’re merely asking that folkz who get abortions OR tummy tucks operate in clean and sanitary environments. Bayam wants womyn to die of Sepsis! Why Bayam are you making war on Womyn?

JFKY on July 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

A fine point btw, Rose. Nicely done.

rogerb on July 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM

We all know the law is neither reasonable, common sense, nor applied equally any more. That’s a given. This new version/latest permutation of Affirmative Action trumps every other consideration.

We also know there is no recourse for the people wanting to publish this ad; the courts will throw out the case.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I would say they could, being private enterprises. They sell advertising space, and they have the option to choose from whom to buy. It’s the same to me as a store refusing a customer’s business if he comes in with no shirt and no shoes.
Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM

But what of Rose’s point, @ 2:54, concerning homosexual couples?

Cleombrotus on July 6, 2013 at 3:52 PM

More government regulations are what you’re calling for… go nanny state and big government!

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

How about a straight-up trade: More restriction on abortion, and less regulation of legal firearms?

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Old/busted:
 

This is why regulations are necessary. People who suggest corporate ‘self-regulation’ as an answer are either incredibly naive or dishonest.
 
bayam on February 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

rogerb on July 6, 2013 at 3:54 PM

But what of Rose’s point, @ 2:54, concerning homosexual couples?

Cleombrotus on July 6, 2013 at 3:52 PM

The shop owners had every right to make their decisions. Liberal judges, of course, aren’t going to see it that way.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Yet another reason for the Koch brothers to buy the LA Times…..

So Obama and the left wants to adopt Europe’s supposed superior health care system, but they summarily reject ‘enlightened’ Europe’s more restrictive abortion policy?

Cavalry on July 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

We also know there is no recourse for the people wanting to publish this ad; the courts will throw out the case.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Boo hoo. Private news companies should be forced to run ads that they don’t want to, right?

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

War on Children.

I hate the language and the tactics behind it, but I can’t help enjoying it turned back on them.

MadisonConservative on July 6, 2013 at 3:58 PM

No one here will argue that these outlets have a requirement to carry these ads. Their newspapers are their own property, and they should be allowed to choose freely on which advertisements they run. But we are also free to reach conclusions about their political bias based on those decisions, and it’s clear that these outlets don’t want a real debate on abortion, especially late-term abortion, based on facts. The argument that this photograph is somehow so controversial that it can’t be published in decent society is ridiculous immediately on viewing the ad. They’re not refusing it because it’s controversial — they’re refusing it because it’s effective.
Commentary of the Day™.

It’s almost as if Gannett and the Tribune Company are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Planned Barrenhood (no, that is not misspelled).

Steve Eggleston on July 6, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Boo hoo. Private news companies should be forced to run ads that they don’t want to, right?

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM


Can a newspaper legally refuse? I think a judge needs to consider that.

dogsoldier on July 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I would say they could, being private enterprises. They sell advertising space, and they have the option to choose from whom to buy. It’s the same to me as a store refusing a customer’s business if he comes in with no shirt and no shoes.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Reading is fundamental…

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 3:59 PM

As you know , our being human is not determined by our size or looks.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM

…but, at least in the ObamiNation, whether Queen Sebelius deems you worthy of living.

Steve Eggleston on July 6, 2013 at 4:00 PM

And for this, they yell, “Hail Satan”!

mobydutch on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I have no problem with the TX restrictions or what Wisconsin is doing. As far as media space – I think private businesses still reserve the right to decide what they want to allow.

As long as Conservatives keep arguing about stories like this, instead of keeping focus on the bigger picture – we can expect to remain the minority party..er, forever.

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

But you would make a florist or baker serve a gay wedding, wouldn’t you.

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

But the networks will still run Bloomturd’s graphically sickening and dishonest anti-smoking and anti-sugar screeds. Super.

fitzfong on July 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM

But you would make a florist or baker serve a gay wedding, wouldn’t you.

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Of course he would – after all, some animals are more equal than others.

Steve Eggleston on July 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM

..and btw – never mind the economy, entitlements, taxes, loss of personal liberty, illegal immigration, Obamacare – this is what we HAVE to focus on folks…

/sarc

useless..useless..

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:04 PM

It doesn’t look like any human I’ve ever meet. I have no more trouble with it being killed than with people eating meat.

thuja on July 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

You’re just effing with us right? Trying to be edgy, a little Far Side humour.

arnold ziffel on July 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Nah. Thuja’s just trying to prove that it’s an idiot…just like any run-of-the-mill leftist.

Again…they’re like snotty little kids shouting some nasty word they’ve just learned in order to ‘scandalize’ the grown-ups.
And thuj sincerely wants/needs to be noticed. (for anything besides being the stupid one)

Solaratov on July 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM

But you would make a florist or baker serve a gay wedding, wouldn’t you.

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

No, I wouldn’t, but then I don’t support anti-discrimination laws at all. Many gay-hating social “conservatives” are fine with them, as long as it only involves race and not sexuality.

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 4:06 PM

..and btw – never mind the economy, entitlements, taxes, loss of personal liberty, illegal immigration, Obamacare – this is what we HAVE to focus on folks…

/sarc

useless..useless..

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Socons don’t care about any of that. They’d be happy to live in a police/welfare state, just as long as it doesn’t allow abortion or gay marriage. Basically a Christian Saudi Arabia.

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 4:08 PM

this is why i keep saying that the truth about abortion will come out eventually. well not now because the newspapers blocked it. but why did they block it? because they know that it will convince some people to go against abortion. so, they KNOW the very same thing i’ve been saying: that the truth will spread to more people eventually and when it does, more people will be against abortion.

though yes, i know that the newspapers have a right to reject any ad they want.

It doesn’t look like any human I’ve ever meet.

thuja on July 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM

you do realize that you used to look like that, right??

Why can newspapers choose who to sell advertising for but photographers and bakers can’t choose who to sell their products to?

Rose on July 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

i was thinking this too. people should be able to choose whom to give their services to. just because someone offers to pay someone else doesn’t mean the person HAS to provide them with a service!

Sachiko on July 6, 2013 at 4:11 PM

More government regulations are what you’re calling for… go nanny state and big government!

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

So, you agree that women aren’t worthy of having a clean safe environment in which to have their babies killed.

Women should just have to take their chances.

Tell us, bayam…why bother to have a “clinic” at all (aside from the profit motive, of course) if it doesn’t have to be at least as clean as a veterinarian’s office? What is wrong with the old “back alley baby-killing with a coat hanger” method? In fact, why not use an old van and let the ‘patient’ just lie on the floor? Sort of door-to-door service.

Solaratov on July 6, 2013 at 4:13 PM

A fine point btw, Rose. Nicely done.

rogerb on July 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM

They can sue for not doing gay weddings but they can’t sue for what the market will bear pricing.Give those folks a mega price for your service and if they buy it take the money.Chances are they will go somewhere else.

docflash on July 6, 2013 at 4:13 PM

As long as Conservatives keep arguing about stories like this, instead of keeping focus on the bigger picture – we can expect to remain the minority party..er, forever.

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

..and btw – never mind the economy, entitlements, taxes, loss of personal liberty, illegal immigration, Obamacare – this is what we HAVE to focus on folks…

/sarc

useless..useless..

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:04 PM

yeah it’s just people being killed, that’s totally not important at all right?

No, I wouldn’t, but then I don’t support anti-discrimination laws at all. Many gay-hating social “conservatives” are fine with them, as long as it only involves race and not sexuality.

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 4:06 PM

race and sexuality are not the same thing. race is permanent and can never change. sexuality is not inherently a permanent thing, contrary to popular belief. it’s weird how everyone automatically assumes that a person’s sexual preference will never change. wtf?

Sachiko on July 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Boo hoo. Private news companies should be forced to run ads that they don’t want to, right?

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Boo Hoo. Private bakeries should be forced to bake cakes they don’t want to, right?

Solaratov on July 6, 2013 at 4:17 PM

The one voice we know is against the baby ever reaching viability is Barack Obama’s. He’s already said it doesn’t have a right to live and, if born alive, could be murdered. I don’t think you need to know anything else about the liberal position on abortion, whether late term or otherwise. That our news organizations are liberal is well demonstrated by their refusal to air these ads.

A couple of short notes. First of all, when they tell you they’re not liberal news organizations, just think of this. Secondly, remember all the hubbub about the Koch Brothers buying the Tribune Company, just imagine if we had a major news outlet that was capable of presenting the other side. Now you know the truth about our MSM.

bflat879 on July 6, 2013 at 4:18 PM

They can sue for not doing gay weddings but they can’t sue for what the market will bear pricing.Give those folks a mega price for your service and if they buy it take the money.Chances are they will go somewhere else.

docflash on July 6, 2013 at 4:13 PM

TRY IT….you’d be served with a law suit so fast…..ESPECIALLY if you have a publicly available price list.

JFKY on July 6, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Just a quick note, but when I discuss these things with low info voters I say five months, not twenty weeks. Seems to have more impact when u put it that way.

Jack_Burton on July 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Socons don’t care about any of that. They’d be happy to live in a police/welfare state, just as long as it doesn’t allow abortion or gay marriage. Basically a Christian Saudi Arabia.

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Of all the really stupid things you post, that is probably one of the most – if not THE most – stupid.

Congratulations! You’ve outdone yourself.

Solaratov on July 6, 2013 at 4:22 PM

More government regulations are what you’re calling for… go nanny state and big government!

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

So, you agree that women aren’t worthy of having a clean safe environment in which to have their babies killed.

Women should just have to take their chances.

So true, you and Ed are so worried about protecting women’s health, very touching! After all, everyone knows that these clinics are unsafe for women, it’s practically no different than the kind of back alley abortion that will replace those occurring in clinics today.

Why don’t we do this… require that every gun owner undergo a psychological evaluation before each gun purchase. After all, don’t you think that gun owners deserve first rate psychologists evaluating their mental condition and readiness to own a firearm, not just some a form presented by a gun store owner or review by a careless bureaucrat?

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Of all the really stupid things you post, that is probably one of the most – if not THE most – stupid.

Congratulations! You’ve outdone yourself.

Solaratov on July 6, 2013 at 4:22 PM

For sure, although he’s cried before that he wishes socons would move to the Middle East.

So he’s pretty much a stupid lib.

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

You and your red herring arguments are boring.

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Why are you all so upset that a pro-life organization can’t buy ads?

Most of you HotAir folks financially support the NFL, which every year gives free advertising (as well as huge donations) to Susan B Komen, a pro-abortion organization.

Which side are you on?

itsnotaboutme on July 6, 2013 at 4:31 PM

They’re not refusing it because it’s controversial — they’re refusing it because it’s effective.

You forgot to add “and pro-life” at the end of that sentence. If it was an effective pro-abortion ad, they would have run it at a discounted rate. Remember the huge discount that the newspapers gave to the anti-Patreyous (sp?) ad called “General Betray Us”?

Theophile on July 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM

As long as Conservatives keep arguing about stories like this, instead of keeping focus on the bigger picture – we can expect to remain the minority party..er, forever.

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

..and btw – never mind the economy, entitlements, taxes, loss of personal liberty, illegal immigration, Obamacare – this is what we HAVE to focus on folks…

/sarc

useless..useless..

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:04 PM

yeah it’s just people being killed, that’s totally not important at all right?

I’m not a Social Conservative and personally think that those who put their specific religion ahead of the bigger issues we face are the cause of much of our recent demise.

There’s a place for religion and a place for political theory – and I would prefer they be separate personally.

As far as TX or Wisconsin’s initiatives, I think most people support that as do I.

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I would say they could, being private enterprises. They sell advertising space, and they have the option to choose from whom to buy. It’s the same to me as a store refusing a customer’s business if he comes in with no shirt and no shoes.

Except that the correct analogy is refusing service to a group, such as blacks or gays, that you don’t like. If a photographer can be forced to photograph a gay wedding, a leftist newspaper must be forced to accept pro-life ads.

SDN on July 6, 2013 at 4:37 PM

That second quote above was from Sachiko, not me (on July 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM.)

Not sure why that didn’t copy over.

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Why don’t we do this… require that every gun owner undergo a psychological evaluation before each gun purchase.

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Quid pro quo, a zero-sum game: Everyone must take an IQ test on the Constitution every two years before being allowed to vote.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Here’s a debate for you. Who’s stupider – thuja or brayam?

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Do i have to choose just one? What about this Armin Tazmaniandevil critter? Doesn’t it get honorable mention? I’m more of the Bailey Quarters statement, “you’re both obtuse”.

AZfederalist on July 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

More government regulations are what you’re calling for… go nanny state and big government!

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

*WHOA* up there Bayam, IF you like ObamaCare you HAVE to be on board with this…remember all those appendectomies and tonsillectomies and leg amputations, we are going to prevent thru increased regulation. Or is this merely a case of the shoe pinching the other foot?

I don’t have a problem with regulations necessary to fix the US healthcare system so it’s more on competitive with those of our peers in the global, such as Germany and Japan. Your glib comments seem to underestimate the severity of shortcomings in the current system, and the waste that it engenders

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?_r=2&

or if you’re lucky, perhaps you can experience some robotic surgery; after all, it’s the latest technology pushed by the industry
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/14/18958967-robotic-surgery-is-high-tech-tour-de-force-but-is-it-safe?lite

As long as Conservatives keep arguing about stories like this, instead of keeping focus on the bigger picture – we can expect to remain the minority party..er, forever.

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Conservatives are doing themselves a great disservice by trying to tout these regulations as somehow related to protecting women’s health. No one actually believes that for a second, and it suggests craven dishonesty and manipulation on their part. It’s far better that you say it’s an act of principle based on the desire to protect the unborn or whatever. The current approach is going to deep and solidify the gender gap like noting in recent political memory.

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Do i have to choose just one? What about this Armin Tazmaniandevil critter? Doesn’t it get honorable mention? I’m more of the Bailey Quarters statement, “you’re both obtuse”.

AZfederalist on July 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Heh – Armin is part of that conversation. I posted my comment before he showed up!

22044 on July 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM

So true, you and Ed are so worried about protecting women’s health, very touching! After all, everyone knows that these clinics are unsafe for women, it’s practically no different than the kind of back alley abortion that will replace those occurring in clinics today.

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

So, you admit that you have never bothered to look at the photos of gosnell’s clinic – and others that are just as filthy.

Typical coward.

If you don’t look at them – you won’t have to admit the truth.

Now, tell us why an abortion mill shouldn’t have to meet the same standards of cleanliness as a veterinarian.

Solaratov on July 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM

And you’re an expert on all that, how, again…?

And save us the other nonsense. You don’t want Conservatives to gain a foothold anywhere. So quit trying to act like you’re our friend.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 4:56 PM

I don’t think the term News outlets means what you think it does.

Much more accurate, leftist propaganda outlets.

jukin3 on July 6, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I’m not a Social Conservative and personally think that those who put their specific religion ahead of the bigger issues we face are the cause of much of our recent demise.

There’s a place for religion and a place for political theory – and I would prefer they be separate personally.

As far as TX or Wisconsin’s initiatives, I think most people support that as do I.

I love this, so having a regard for “Life” is now “religious?” Or a regard for life is a SPECIFIC religion?

Also I guess in 1860 you’d have been worried about the Tariff Issues confronting the Union, that whole “Slavery” thing, that would just be a religious SIDE ISSUE, right?

JFKY on July 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Why don’t we do this… require that every gun owner undergo a psychological evaluation before each gun purchase.

bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Quid pro quo, a zero-sum game: Everyone must take an IQ test on the Constitution every two years before being allowed to vote.

Liam on July 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Racist!

slickwillie2001 on July 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Why can newspapers choose who to sell advertising for but photographers and bakers can’t choose who to sell their products to?
Rose on July 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Because newspapers have the right to be free, but religious people don’t. It’s all in the First Amendment or something.

Akzed on July 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM

As long as Conservatives keep arguing about stories like this, instead of keeping focus on the bigger picture – we can expect to remain the minority party..er, forever.

celt on July 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Um, celt, this is a PART of the “big picture”. Or haven’t you noticed?

Cleombrotus on July 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM

No one here will argue that these outlets have a requirement to carry these ads. Their newspapers are their own property, and they should be allowed to choose freely on which advertisements they run.

No longer a true statement, at least in Colorado. When a gay couple can sue a baker for refusing to make them a wedding cake based on religous reasons, pretty much anything is on the table for lawsuits. The gay couple has the ACLU on thier side which I am farily certain would not happen with the above story.

Johnnyreb on July 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Why don’t we do this… require that every gun owner undergo a psychological evaluation before each gun purchase. After all, don’t you think that gun owners deserve first rate psychologists evaluating their mental condition and readiness to own a firearm, not just some a form presented by a gun store owner or review by a careless bureaucrat?
bayam on July 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Why?

Because our arms are protected by the Bill of Rights.

The other side of that coin is that, nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a right to pull off babies’ arms.

Akzed on July 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Armin Tamzarian on July 6, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Big surprise. There you are.

Predictable as the morning’s sun. Your breadth of knowledge is so limited.

This is why regulations are necessary. People who suggest corporate ‘self-regulation’ as an answer are either incredibly naive or dishonest.

bayam on February 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

H/T roger

Brayam suck my d8ck you POS.

CW on July 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6