In blog, viral

Yesterday the famed Rolling Stone magazine decided to nail its flag firmly to the abortion activism flagpole by publishing a poorly researched anti pro-life attack column titled: The Seven Most Common Lies About Abortion – Debunking anti-choice misinformation about women’s health.

It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see the lack of balance in this article – heck, the title gives the game away right from the outset.

The term ‘anti-choice’ is not a journalistic phrase, it’s the terminology used by abortion activists who hate the pro-life movement, and referring to abortion as “women’s health” is another favorite marketing deception employed by abortion activists.

As you can imagine, the article also plays fast and loose with the truth, opting instead for misinformation, falsehoods, abortion activist talking points, and lots of logically fallacious ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to oppose the killing of unborn human beings in the womb.

Several times in the article they use the Guttmacher Institute as a source for information, and they even refer to them as: “a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

This is the very same Guttmacher Institute that is named after a former president of Planned Parenthood, and which was founded by Planned Parenthood and operated for many years as one of its divisions.

Yes, that’s the same Planned Parenthood that is the United States largest provider of for-profit abortion.

So, you’ll  excuse me for doubting the credibility of the information contained in this Rolling Stone article.

Things get really nasty…

The author of this column, after initially making pro-women overtures, then proceeds to promote several anti-women positions.

Firstly, she boldly, and rather arrogantly declares that post-abortion psychological pain is a lie.

So, does that mean that all those women who experience psychological harm as a result of their abortion are liars?

Or are they just delusional, and in need of psychiatric treatment for their self-induced psychosis about abortion wounding them?

This sort of anti-women bile is sadly typical of a lot of abortion activists, and it makes an absolute mockery of their claims to be ‘pro-women’.

It’s ugly stuff, and it’s a betrayal of authentic feminism in favour of abortion-promoting ideologies (ideologies that usually favour the male proclivity for sexual irresponsibility and abandoning women.)

And remember, all of this is coming from a journalist who, earlier in the article, accuses pro-lifers of not allowing “women to share their nuanced, personal abortion experiences.”

The hypocrisy is both astounding and vile.

Then came the absurd claim that laws which require abortion providers to operate according to best-practice medical standards are “onerous and unnecessary”.

Yes, that’s right, apparently laws which require abortion clinics to provide basic standards of protection and care for their female clients are something women should be opposed to.

The insanity of this proposal is quite something to behold.

Just consider the following quote from the article:

“Examples [of these laws] include requiring abortion clinics to be Ambulatory Surgical Centers, requiring that all abortions performed past a certain point be done in a hospital, or requiring all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. On the surface, these sound like benevolent requirements, but in practice, they are completely medically unnecessary and serve only to shutter otherwise functional abortion providers.”

It astounds me to think that a seemingly intelligent person could consider any of these basic medical safety requirements to be “unnecessary”, or that a provider offering major surgery could be considered to be “functional” without such basic precautions in place.

And then the article states (emphasis added):

“Since [these] laws surfaced in 2010, more than 50 safe abortion clinics have closed.”

How can an abortion provider be considered “safe” if they don’t adhere to basic medical safety guidelines?!

If Rolling Stone truly is the serious journalistic venture that it likes to think it is, then a future edition will feature equal column space for a pro-life feminist response to this terribly unbalanced and accuracy-challenged article.

If not, then I will be forced to believe that Rolling Stone Magazine has sold out women for thirty pieces of pro-abortion ideological silver.







Recent Posts
Contact Us

Send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text.