News outlets reject pro-life ad for being "too controversial"

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.


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?