Across the country, pregnancy resource centers have saved the lives of at least 800,000 babies between 2016 and 2022.
The radical Left knows just how effective and detrimental to their agenda these pro-life centers are. They provide free resources to help support women during and after their pregnancies, refuting the false argument that pro-life Americans are only “pro-birth.”
That’s why there have been over eighty attacks on pregnancy resource centers by pro-abortion terrorist groups such as “Jane’s Revenge” since the May 2022 leak of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe vs. Wade.
In its own way, the corporate media plays right into that violent trend. The language they use deliberately misleads readers about these life-saving centers and obscures the alarming rise in violence against them.
Here are six times the media exposed their bias against women’s resource centers.
Rolling Stone
It was an impressive level of outrage considering the incidents themselves … amounted to relatively superficial property damage…. A right wing bogeyman.
Originally a music magazine, Rolling Stone continues to prove just how disastrous its foray into politics has become. One of their recent articles describes pro-abortion terrorists simply as “vandals.” The writeup also claims the profound damage they inflicted was just “superficial.”
The author then blames the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) for indicting two of the criminals – who endangered employees at three different pregnancy resource centers in Florida.
Rolling Stone complains that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the same law that nearly sent pro-life activist Mark Houck to prison for defending his son, was used in this case to protect pro-life centers. In other words, people who work to save babies should not be protected by federal law in the same way that people who work to kill them are.
The Guardian
What is surprising about these recent attacks… is that the vast majority of violent protest tactics… have come, historically, from the right of American politics.
The Guardian’s sole article covering attacks on pregnancy resource centers seems meant only to excuse them.
First, the article repeatedly calls pro-life centers “pregnancy crisis centers,” showing a remarkable lack of familiarity with pro-life work (virtually no one ever uses those words in that order).
The piece makes an effort to seem impartial by calling Jane’s Revenge “extremist” and “militant.” However, the same publication uses much harsher language to describe non-violent pro-life groups.
The Guardian uses heavily biased language, consistently referring to pro-lifers as “anti-choice” and to pro-abortion activists as “pro-choice.” When it comes to addressing the pro-abortion violence, the author’s main concern is that it “may turn people against the cause” of promoting abortion.
Associated Press
If using the term anti-abortion center, explain later that these often are known as ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ (with quotation marks) and that their aim is to dissuade people from getting an abortion.
Often described as the “gold standard” for journalism, the AP Stylebook is supposed to be unbiased. Last November, however, they quietly updated the guide to include a section encouraging journalists to use loaded pro-abortion language in their reporting.
The manual now openly discourages the use of the terms “pregnancy resource centers” or “pregnancy counseling centers.” Their preferred term is instead “anti-abortion center.” “Crisis pregnancy center” is sometimes acceptable, but only with scare quotes.
As The Daily Signal notes, these changes happened after violent attacks on pregnancy resource centers had been ongoing for six months.
CNN
Some of the [pro-life centers] that receive money have been accused of spreading abortion misinformation or using the funds to advocate anti-abortion causes.
Sometimes it’s not so much what media outlets report, but what they choose not to report.
This recent CNN article on pro-life care clinics completely neglects the widespread violence against them, even though it was published in October 2022, five months after the pro-abortion terror group Jane’s Revenge called for a “summer of rage.”
The article focuses instead on the fact that taxpayer dollars are sometimes used to fund pregnancy resource centers… but leaves out the fact that Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics are widely taxpayer-funded.
The piece favorably quotes an abortionist who laments, “I cannot think of any other medical decision… where there is a group of individuals whose only intent is to stop you from receiving that health care.”
The Washington Post
Crisis pregnancy centers have been one of the top tools of the antiabortion movement, and a target for intense criticism from abortion rights advocates…. These centers deploy what critics decry as overly aggressive… deceptive tactics to talk women out of abortions.
The Washington Post unleashed a hit piece on one of the most successful pro-life centers in the country. The article pokes fun at the comfortable amenities the non-profit pregnancy center generously provides to the pregnant women it serves.
The piece makes no mention of the attacks other pregnancy resource centers endured in the weeks before it was published in July 2022.
The New York Times
Anti-abortion activists have spent decades fighting Roe… in part by establishing a national network of 2,600 so-called crisis pregnancy centers, through which they try to deter… abortions, often with deceptive practices.
The entire premise of a recent article published in the New York Times is to cast the pro-life movement as having an “agenda,” and using “misleading” and “deceptive” means to achieve it. But the same piece ignores the fact that pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood (and even The New York Times itself) often use misleading language to further their agenda.
