Corporate Coverage Of SCOTUS Battle Shows Reporters Are Extremely Pro-Abortion

Corporate Coverage Of SCOTUS Battle Shows Reporters Are Extremely Pro-Abortion

This pro-abortion bias among reporters isn't new, but its prevalence is even more apparent now that Amy Coney Barrett is officially nominated to the Supreme Court.
Jordan Davidson
By

While corporate media outlets and reporters pride themselves on “objective” reporting and writing, it is no news to careful observers that many interject their politics into their work, which usually skews left. Since the announcement of former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing and President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace her, the media has again reflected its deep bias, making Barrett their newest target.

Not only are media corporations and left attacking Barrett, her Catholic faith, and even her adopted children, but they are also targeting her historically pro-life stance, fighting back by promoting and publishing pro-abortion opinions and strongly criticizing anyone who doesn’t believe similarly.

This last week, headlines, subheaders, and articles from The New York Times, NBC, Politico, and more media corporations demonstrated explicit bias against pro-life ideas. Mere days into the SCOTUS nominee coverage after RBG’s death, a barrage of articles misrepresenting the pro-life movement hit the proverbial stands, using fearmongering tactics to attempt to convince women that their “reproductive rights” were on the line because conservatives might finally have the chance to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. Some news outlets even labeled people who believe in life as an inalienable right, no matter what stage of development, as  “anti-abortion” advocates instead of pro-life.

One story from Refinery 29 and republished on Yahoo! Life claimed that Barrett, who has seven children of her own, “hates your uterus” because she “plans to continue Scalia’s anti-abortion legacy.” The article disparages Barrett’s public pro-life proclamations and warns that, if confirmed, Barrett would create”a 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court that will most definitely derail years of inclusive healthcare initiatives,” i.e., murdering babies.

The media hypocrisy extended to an article in Teen Vogue.  It argued that, despite their previous eagerness to promote women who were making a difference, Barrett was simply “not the right woman” partially because she is a “staunch anti-choice judge.”

Even before the nomination of Barrett was announced, the Associated Press published a wire article picked up by many local news outlets around the nation accusing the president of issuing the “Born Alive” executive order to gain the attention of “anti-abortion voters.”

Journalists from MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Magazine, and more showed their true colors after RBG’s death on Twitter, with many expressing worry about Roe v. Wade and losing their “rights” to kill babies. Many also expressed disdain for President Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate’s decision to move forward in a nomination and confirmation process for a replacement.

Unfortunately, this media bias concerning abortion isn’t new. In 2011, abortionist Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia was arrested and charged with first-degree murder of at least one woman and three children. In addition to the murders, the grand jury found Gosnell operated his facility with employees who were not licensed and oversaw poor, unsafe, and disgusting conditions where he left women without care or attention and killed babies after they were born. 

“Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them,” said one report. “He didn’t call it that. He called it ‘ensuring fetal demise.’ The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord.”

Even though Gosnell’s arrest in 2011 was “widely covered,” national news corporations such as NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, The Washington Post, NPR, and CNN failed to cover the trial that began in March 2013 until at least a week after it began. Even then, some outlets barely touched on the story portraying some of the horrors and exploitation of the abortion industry. 

When The Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway questioned the lack of coverage by the Washington Post and their health policy reporter Sarah Kliff about Gosnell, pointing out that serial killers usually received ample attention from the media, Kliff claimed that Gosnell’s crimes were merely a “local crime story” that did not require national coverage. 

“Hi Molly – I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention,” Kliff said.

Kliff later admitted her mistake claiming that “the egregious and horrifying crimes committed in the physician’s West Philadelphia abortion clinic have become a matter of national attention.”

“When I described the case of abortion provider Kermit Gosnell on Twitter last month as a local crime story, I was clearly wrong. The egregious and horrifying crimes committed in the physician’s West Philadelphia abortion clinic have become a matter of national attention,” a note at the top of her article detailing the case said

Facebook also censored advertisements for the 2018 “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” film detailing Gosnell’s crimes. 

This same lack of coverage occurs every year with the March For Life, one of the largest events on the National Mall. Despite its consistency and popularity and even though many other marches and protests gain national attention through mainstream media coverage, national publications and news corporations do not give the march any fair attention or coverage, if any at all.

‘This is a concerted effort to ignore a message that doesn’t fit with the media’s pro-abortion agenda. Not only should March for Life participants and organizers demand fair (read: any) legitimate coverage of the event, the general public should demand that news organizations do their job, at the most basic level,” wrote one Federalist contributor.

This pro-abortion bias among reporters isn’t new, but its prevalence is even more apparent now that Barrett is officially nominated to the Supreme Court. Given the media’s track record with recent SCOTUS confirmation hearings, the hypocrisy and subjectivity will continue to grow over the next few weeks as Barrett begins a trial by fire interrogation process.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Copyright © 2020 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.