Sunday, September 08, 2002

Liberal media bias of the day. CyberAlert reported that Viacom broadcast a show with Senator Hillary Clinton, and used sound editors to replace booing with cheering!

I stumbled across this Microsoft Encarta definition:

postfeminist    post·fem·i·nist adjective
1. after feminism: occurring or having developed after the feminist movement of the 1970s (offensive in some contexts)

In what context is this word offensive? There is no similar warning for either feminist or antifeminist.

Andy writes:

Encarta's ERA article was biased and misleading in several respects. For example, there was never a popular demand for ERA (or its extension), which repeatedly lost in referenda (thanks in part to Stop ERA). ERA was driven by the media and the liberal elite, at the zenith of their power.

Roger wrote, "The article said: arguing that the ERA would bar any restrictions on abortion. I wouldn't object if it said: arguing that the ERA would bar any restrictions on govt abortion funding. Those issues are very different, in the minds of many people."

I doubt "many voters" draw Roger's fine distinction. The distinction only makes sense by ignoring pivotal issues concerning use of public hospitals and medical school training and Planned Parenthood and marketing in public fora like subways trains and schools.

Demand for abortion depends almost entirely on its promotion by government, in one form or another. Abortion demand among the masses almost disappears without government promotion.

John writes:

There are restrictions on public funding of abortion. The two main federal restrictions were upheld in Harris v. McRae (1980) and Rust v. Sullivan (1991) by 5-4 votes. In addition, a majority of states restrict public funding of abortion.

ERA would overturn all these restrictions. In states that have a state ERA, state courts have overturned funding restrictions.

I'm not surprised that Roger thinks abortion and public funding of abortion are "very different" issues - and that he thinks "many people" agree.

However, I would point out that virtually all scholars and advocates of legal abortion (e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg) believe they are one and the same issue. All pro-abortion groups believe that public funding is essential to abortion rights. There is no "pro-choice" spokesman who is willing to accept any restrictions whatsoever on public funding of abortion.

Their fundamental axiom is that abortion is a legitimate medical procedure no different from appendectomy. They don't want abortion relegated to separate clinics where people have to pay cash. Their goal is to have abortion offered wherever any medical services are offered, which implies public funding (since virtually all medical providers receive public funds).

No comments: