Media Bias Over Mass Murder

Editor’s note: United Liberty recognizes the divide amongst libertarians over the abortion issue and that there are strong, but thoughtful feelings coming from both sides. This piece covers an important issue that has been neglected by the mainstream media. It does not necessarily reflect the views of United Liberty or every contributor.

Murder. Exploitation. Blood money. Intrigue. The story of Kermit Gosnell has all of this and more, a story which is filled with horrifying and sensational details, a story of such heartless depravity and gory death that it could have been a George Romero film. So why it that you are almost guaranteed to have never heard of Gosnell? That is an excellent question, and one that anyone who believes in a strong and independent free press should be demanding answers to. If there was ever a case of clear-cut media bias and cover-up, this is it.

I first learned about Gosnell in January 2011 from a link to an article in, reporting on his arrest and formal indictment on eight counts of murder and related charges. The trial of Gosnell began last month, and other than conservative websites and news sources, it is almost impossible to find a story in the mainstream print press until a few days ago, and as of the time of this writing, there has been ZERO coverage of the story by the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS). The travesty of the media black-out was captured in an article in Investors Business Daily, which wrote:

In defense of Richard Mourdock


It seems that GOP candidates still have not learned that they are better off not speaking about rape and abortion.  Just weeks after Todd Akin’s infamous “legitimate rape” comment, another conservative has stated his views on the issue - this time Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock:

“I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: “Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Now, I should get one thing out the way here.  I personally find Mourdock’s comments to be callous, and as someone who does not personally believe in a deity, I could never imagine telling a woman who was impregnated by a rapist that it was “God’s will” to carry to term a baby fathered by a vicious attacker and forced on her through the most violent of means.  It seems remarkably insensitive and lacking compassion.

But it’s not at all inconsistent or illogical given the thinking of pro-lifers.  If you’re someone who genuinely believes that life begins at the moment of conception, it doesn’t matter to you the circumstances.  I’ve always thought it to be very dishonest for “pro-life” candidates to be against abortion, but leave exceptions for rape and incest.  If you believe that unborn fetuses have full human rights, then the only possible time you could be okay with ending that life is if another life is at stake or if you believe it is compassionate due to severe birth defects.  And even then, that’s debatable.

This is sickening: Planned Parenthood affiliate gives award to clinic that increased the number of abortions it performed

In the final season of The West Wing, Matt Santos, the fictional Democratic Party presidential nominee, got into a contentious discussion about abortion with the spokesperson for the Women’s Choice Alliance, a pro-choice special interest group.

“‘Pro-choice,’” the spokesperson said, “means anyone can do what they want.”

“Yeah, but it shouldn’t mean that we’re proud of whatever they choose,” Santos replied. “Maybe all this chest-beating is the reason the Right can get away with [a negative ad on abortion], the reason why a leader of my church can exile me for not trying to impose my religion on the rest of the country.”

“And we’re surprised that there are people out there who think we’re for unlimited abortion. That there are actually voters, who are pro-choice, that think that we’re too extreme,” he added.

Seems reasonable, right? Even though abortion is legal, no one should be proud the controversial practice, which often involves women who are placed in a difficult situations where they feel they have to make such a life-changing decision.

Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is allegedly handing out awards to local affiliates that exceed the number of abortions they performed compared to the previous year. Here’s a photo of the award provided by And Then There Were None via

Wow. Just wow.

Colorado Senate Democrats Want to Protect Reproductive Choice From Future Regulations

The Colorado Senate has just delayed S.B. 175; a bill that is being sold as a  measure that would not only prevent cities, counties, and other legal jurisdictions within Colorado from restricting reproductive choice (up to and including abortion) but also prevent future legislatures from doing so.

This current state legislature is to determine this issue once and for all. The only reason the bill wasn’t put up for a vote to decide this issue once and for all was because one Democrat senator was absent on the day of the vote (Democrats have a 1 seat majority in the Colorado Senate).

Though I am personally pro-choice and am quite wary of all the attempts from the anti-choice side to pass “personhood” bills, the idea that one state legislature could decide any political issue for all time is troubling. It’s even more troubling to think that such a law could be passed by a one vote majority. Is it even possible to write such a law that can never, ever be changed?

If these people were really serious, they would take the steps necessary to amend the state’s constitution (of course doing so requires much more than a simple majority in the Legislature; not something that is likely to happen in such a purple state). An amendment to the constitution is really the closest to a permanent, unchangeable law there is.

Will Abortion Go the Way of Slavery?


Is abortion in the United States destined to go the way of slavery? A moral evil considered a stain on the conscience of a nation, which future generations of Americans will look back upon with shame and derision in the same way we treat with contempt the thought that anyone could have ever attempted to justify slavery?

While it may seem unfathomable to contemplate, considering how commonplace abortion has become in America since the ruling in Roe v. Wade, it may not be as far-fetched as you might think. Its ubiquitous presence today may be the very catalyst that drives it from our social landscape.

Since the Roe ruling, there have been more than 56 million unborn children aborted in America. Think about that for a moment. In the last four decades, we have killed in the womb enough children to equal the populations of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia….COMBINED! That is nine times more innocent lives taken than Jews that were killed by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. That is the equivalent of wiping out the entire population of Italy today.

Today we talk of abortion in politically-correct, sanitized terms like “a woman’s right to choose” and “reproductive rights”. It is considered uncouth to discuss in morbid detail the brutal process that the child endures during an abortion before being tossed out as medical waste. To allow ourselves to consider these things would be gruesome indeed, and difficult to reconcile in a nation where we routinely violate private property rights and shut down major construction projects in order to protect the habitat of some snail or lizard.

The Long, Phony War on Women

If you haven’t heard, there’s a “war on women” going on. It’s being waged by politicians who want control over women. It’s being waged by power-seeking, petty tyrants who believe women are weak and need their help to live their lives.

But if you think it’s being waged by those evil conservative GOP politicians, whose mission is to keep women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, married before they turn 21, and popping out a quiver full of babies, your myopic vision is a problem.

The Democrats have created an entire industry from victimhood, and they have been successfully using it to win elections.

Their latest battle is the so-called “war on women,” that they have been touting ever since conservatives raised their voices in protest about having to fund Sandra Fluke’s sexual choices.

Taking Back Feminism

As a woman, watching what’s happening in Texas is a study in dichotomies. On the one hand, the right to speak about reproductive rights at all is fairly astonishing and heartening given the relative inability of women the world over to do the same. On the other, the most hateful among us appear to be squandering that precious gift by — well — chanting “Hail, Satan!” at people who have a different take on reproductive rights (read: the right to reproduce), and celebrating being a “ho.” Pretty sure that’s not what the early crusaders for women’s rights in this country had in mind, but whatever. Times change.

What does not change, however, is the human tendency — particularly in politics — of those on the side of a losing argument to devolve their protestations into puerility and desperation, both in an attempt to gain attention to “the cause,” and to shock and offend; because shocking and offensive behavior drives the news cycle, and the news cycle (in theory) determines relevance. Hence, the very ridiculous images and videos coming out of Texas as they debate late-term abortion.

Does “Pro-Life” Mean Government Control? To Thomas Friedman It Does

Written by David Boaz, executive vice president at the Cato Institute. It is cross-posted with permission from Cato @ Liberty.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has a column today provocatively titled “Why I Am Pro-Life.” Of course he doesn’t mean that he wants the government to protect life in utero. Instead he turns to a standard Democratic theme: How can you say you’re “pro-life” and oppose welfare, environmental regulation, and every other government program? Friedman doesn’t miss a beat: “common-sense gun control…the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet…. programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children….”

But then he takes it a breathtaking step further:

the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.

What Choice Does a Pro-Life Voter Have?

Post image for What Choice Does a Pro-Life Voter Have?

This past weekend, I got an email from a reader who was frustrated over her options in the presidential race. She’s a pro-life voter, and as is the case with many pro-life voters, a candidate’s stance on the life issue determines whether or not he will get her vote.

Her dilemma is that none of this year’s presidential nominees are pro-life candidates. Of the top 3, Romney is the most likely to be sympathetic to the pro-life movement, but his history of conflicting statements on the issue makes her doubt his sincerity.

And it should.

Despite the election year rhetoric from Mitt Romney, there really is no truly pro-life candidate on the ballot this year. That leaves single-issue pro-life voters with two options:

1. Vote for Romney and hope for the best.

I don’t expect Romney to suddenly start championing pro-life issues, but of the top 3 nominees, he’s the most likely to do so. This doesn’t make him a pro-life candidate by any measure, but there is some comfort in the fact that if elected, he will have pressure from his party to lean toward the pro-life movement when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.

2. Abstain.

If there’s no candidate you feel you can support with a clear conscience, then don’t vote in that election. Much like owning a gun or speaking out against a tyrannical government, the right is yours, but the obligation is not.

That’s not to say that you shouldn’t participate in the election process. Surely there are congressional, state, and local elections where you can cast a vote. But you should never vote for a candidate in violation of your conscience.

Americans skeptical of government promiting “traditional values”

Traditional Values

Politicians on both side of the aisle like to use government to coerce people into living moral lives, often aligning with some view of “traditional values.” President George W. Bush was guilty of this. More recently, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have carried that message forward in the Republican Party. But a new poll from CNN shows that Americans are increasingly skeptical of using government to promote these so-called “traditional values”:

The biggest: The number of Americans who say that the government should promote traditional values has fallen to an all-time low, a finding that might benefit many Democrats,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

According to the survey, just four in 10 registered voters believe the government should promote traditional values, down from 53% in 2010 and 57% in 2008.

“Between 1993, when CNN began asking that question, and last year, a majority of respondents have always said that the government should promote traditional values. Now, for the first time, more than half say the government should not favor any particular set of values,” adds Holland.

More Americans are also not happy with the government intervention in their daily lives. According to the CNN poll, “Six in 10 say the government is doing too much that should be left to individuals and businesses. That finding could favor Republicans.”

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.