Media

 

Media’s coverage of pro-abortion Supreme Court briefs snobbish elitism on steroids

By Dave Andrusko
The day got away from me, so I hope to revisit this topic tomorrow in greater detail.
On Tuesday NRL News Today discussed the friend-of-the-court in brief submitted to the Supreme Court by the Obama Administration supporting the pro-abortion challenge to portions of HB 2, the 2013 Texas pro-life bill. There were many other briefs filed as well–45 in all, at least according to media accounts.

The state of Texas’ own brief defending HB2 is due to the court January 27. Friend of the court briefs in support of the law are due February 3. My question is this.
Do you believe for even a nanosecond that when those briefs come in they will receive 1/100 of the servile, puff pieces that have appeared with unceasing regularity ever since Monday?
Will we read equivalent stories such as this one which began

More than 100 women lawyers joined in a brief to tell the U.S. Supreme Court about their own abortions and why their reproductive freedom was pivotal to their personal and professional lives. The extraordinary brief, filed Monday, was signed by former judges, law professors, law firm partners, public interest lawyers and law clerks, though none who clerked for the high court itself.

Or, referring to “a brief submitted by 10 professional women,”

Those telling their stories generally became pregnant while attending prestigious universities such as Harvard and Stanford, a way station to their successful careers. Had they not decided on abortions, they said, their lives would have been changed forever by a single mistake.

A “single mistake,” as if they became pregnant by osmosis; as if that “mistake” wasn’t “rectified” by the death of a totally helpless unborn child; as if it’s REALLY okay to tear your kid limb from limb if you attend Harvard or Stanford.
I wonder if editors edit anymore? If they do, they would have seen these stories for what they are: a snobbish elitism on steroids.

Source: NRLC News