Liberal Media Trashed Pro-Life Teens Extensively, Spent Just 58 Seconds on Actual March for Life

By Kristan Hawkins
Life News

It’s almost cliché in pro-life circles that on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade for coming close to 50 years, hundreds of thousands of people march for life, and almost no one in the media can see them. Like Pro-Life Ninjas, they move in and out of the nation’s capitol undetected….until a teenager with a “Make America Great Again” hat was faced with a reality of political life today, the professional protestor causing agitation while fellow activists filmed attempts to cause a media moment.

And it worked, at least at first, as many rushed to judgment.

But what is also amazing to me is how aggressively the media ignores hundreds and thousands people — nuns and pastors, families made by adoption and birth, young and old, rich and poor, volunteers in pregnancy care centers and students from across the country — all marching for Life. They see nothing, wading through a crowd, to find something they can criticize. Attacking students based on a few minutes of video is offensive for many reasons, but ignoring all that could be easily seen is just as problematic. 

The story of the March for Life deserves to be told by those members of the Fourth Estate who ignore it because of their bias and prejudice against people of faith and in favor of abortion.

Consider that according to the Media Research Center, the major news networks devoted just 58 seconds to the March for Life while the so-called Women’s March (an unwelcoming event for pro-life women) got 15 times more coverage.

But, major news organizations, including Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, USA Today, and New York Times, all suddenly discovered that the March for Life was happening in time to raise public sentiment against Catholic teens wearing Trump hats who were allegedly mocking a a Native American veteran of the Vietnam war (a claim that was stolen valor and has since been debunked.

But it wasn’t just this student who faced attack for his alleged views. It’s common for abortion activists to falsely attack marchers, saying that we only love babies in the womb, want to force women to give birth or that we are not here for mothers after the birth of a child. How wrong they are.

How is it that they miss the tens of thousands of diapers collected every year by Students for Life groups? Or the tens of thousands of dollars raised by Students for Life groups to help pregnant and parenting students? Or how do they miss the numerous good works of other pro-life groups that run pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, or free medical clinics?

The day after this alleged incident, Students for Life of America hosted more than 2,500 young, pro-life leaders to talk about how the Pro-Life Generation will abolish abortion.

Life News continues here

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, Pinterest, and on MeWe.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does? 

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.

In Southeast Penna:  Call the Community Women's Center at  215-826-8090

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.   

Liberal Media Disgustingly Accuse Adoptive Couple at Trump’s State of the Union of Coercing Baby’s Mother

By Katie Yoder
Life News

What on earth is wrong with people? Instead of celebrating an adoptive couple’s touching story, highlighted at the State of the Union, some media began a rumor that the parents coerced one mother to hand them her child. And, as they bashed the president for not saying more, they themselves left out key details.

The fact is, because Donald Trump liked the story, a whole swath of the left automatically hate it. Add in some liberals’ passionate lectures about identity, privilege and power, and they’re doing their best to make a compassionate human act into yet another oppressive outrage.

On Tuesday night, Albuquerque policeman Ryan Holets, and his wife, Rebecca, attended the State of the Union as guests of the president and first lady. During his address, President Trump told the parents of five that they “embody the goodness of our Nation.” That’s because last year the two adopted a little girl named Hope, whose mother was addicted to drugs.

The president told the story:

Last year, Holets was on duty when he saw a pregnant, homeless woman preparing to inject heroin. When Holets told her she was going to harm her unborn child, she began to weep. She told him she did not know where to turn, but badly wanted a safe home for her baby.

“In that moment, Holets said he felt God speak to him: ‘You will do it – because you can.’ He took out a picture of his wife and their four kids. Then, he went home to tell his wife Rebecca. In an instant, she agreed to adopt.

Both conservative and most liberal media praised the “powerful” story. But others, like Splinter and Slate, baselessly accused Holets of pressuring the birth mother, Cyrstal Champ, to give up Hope.

Beginning with its headline, Univision-owned Splinter (formerly Fusion), mocked the Holets Tuesday evening as a “nice white couple taking a homeless addict’s baby.” Then Editor and writer Katherine Krueger charged Holets of showing Champ a photo of his own family in order to “guilt her into giving up her baby.”

Rather than support her claim, she went on to cherry-pick a December CNN story of the adoption. “Cherry-pick,” meaning she ignored the part where CNN reported that Crystal “emotionally told Holets that she desperately hoped someone would adopt her baby” before he offered to do just that.

Life News report continues here

The Liberal Media is Pretending Abortion Doesn’t Cause Breast Cancer….Again

By Michael New
Life Site News

Donald Trump’s recent appointment of Charmaine Yoest to a position within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received considerable media coverage. Yoest, who once served as President of Americans United for Life (AUL), a prominent beltway pro-life group, has stated on previous occasions that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. 

This position was prominently mentioned and criticized in articles run by a number of media outlets, including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Cosmopolitan, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Last month, Washington Post fact-checker Michelle Ye He Lee conducted an analysis of the link between abortion and breast cancer. To the Post’s credit, Lee’s analysis is fairer than most media coverage of this topic. 

Lee acknowledges that academic studies dating back to the 1950s show that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Lee also contacted both the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (BCPI), both of whom support the abortion–breast cancer link. Lee presents both their arguments and links to their studies.

That said, Lee is clearly skeptical of the link. She finds persuasive the conclusions of a 2003 workshop held by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Its final report held that methodologically sound studies showed no association between induced abortion and increased breast cancer risk. 

Unfortunately, there is less here than meets the eye. Scholars who supported the abortion–breast cancer link were not invited to make formal presentations at the NCI workshop. Furthermore, the new research that was presented at this workshop was neither available to other researchers nor peer-reviewed.

Lee does find plausible the arguments put forth by AAPLOG and BCPI that, due to changes in hormone production and breast-tissue development during pregnancy, late-term abortions may increase the risk of breast cancer. Indeed, a substantial body of empirical research supports this finding. 

Skeptics of the abortion–breast cancer link argue that the 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study by Melbye, et al. is the methodologically strongest study on the topic. However, even this study finds that abortions after eighteen weeks of gestation are correlated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of breast cancer.

It would be nice if the Washington Post, other media outlets, and academic organizations would use this as a starting point for discussion about the abortion–breast cancer link. Once again, the Post’s fact-check is another example of how the mainstream media are primarily interested in marginalizing research that finds that induced abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.

Website: Life Site News