The work of “Lila Rose,” the young woman who caught several Planned Parenthood abortion mills red-handed (pun intended) covering up statutory rape, is featured in the Los Angeles Times.
The article is biased in favor of abortion and against Lila Rose’s tactics, but I’m not hating on the Times. I’m surprised and quite pleased the mainstream newspaper wrote about the cover-ups at all. Hey, be grateful for small things. The more people who’re aware of Planned Parenthood’s stupendously hare-brained activity, the better.
The biased term “antiabortion” is used throughout the article. Obviously, the author believes abortion is okay. Otherwise, why not use “pro-life”? Because it shines a bright, revealing light on what abortion is: the death of a fetus. And pro-deathers prefer not to think of a fetus as a living human worthy of life.
Did you catch my bias? I call “pro-choice” people “pro-deathers.” I wear my bias on my sleeve and in my heart. I am neither impressed by sentiments nor persuaded by arguments that women should retain the right to kill their babies on demand. For whatever reason.
I am biased in favor of unborn life, not allowing women to snuff out that life because they don’t want “it.” Most mainstream media types are leftists who support atrocities like abortion, and it shows in how they choose to frame a story. I used to rant and rave about it. But I do the same thing. It’s human nature. Why fight it? I’m willing to give readers credit for being smarter than reporters (and freelance writers) think they are.
Takeaway for today: Embrace your biases!
And follow Live Action on Twitter.
I “tweet” more than I blog these days, so follow me for links and updates throughout the day.
