Is Pro Life Money Green?

Is pro life money green?

Evidently, the Chicago Tribune, USA Today and the LA Times don’t think so. 

Each of these publications refused to run this ad, which was sponsored by Heroic Media and designed to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The ad was not a public service message, it was paid advertising:

Heroic media

According to a National Review article, these three publications said they refused the ad because it was “too controversial.”

The Chicago Tribune has agreed to run the ad below instead, with the proviso that the ad must say that the advertiser clarify that the ad is an advertisement for legislation. 

Screen shot 2013 07 09 at 1 02 17 PM

I may be wrong, but I’m guessing the reason that they are chary of running the ad is at least partly due to the pro choice predilections of the editorial staff at these publications. I know that if someone wanted to run a post promoting abortion on this blog, I would almost certainly refuse. However, I would tell them that the reason is because I do not promote evil here. The editorial staff of a supposedly objective news publication does not have the luxury of saying things like that. 

I think that these ads are a bit too close to the reality of what late-term abortion really is. There’s no blob of flesh here. You are not dealing with a single cell. The humanity of these little persons is obvious; so obvious that a photo can show it. 

I think that the “controversy” is really fear on the part of the people who made this decision, and that the fear verges on primal terror of facing the horror of what they have supported and what they have done by being pro abortion. 

  • TheodoreSeeber
    • hamiltonr

      That’s interesting Ted. I need to read that bill and see what it says.

  • Almario Javier

    Repreesentative Hamilton, I think the reason is a bit baser than mere ideological predilections of the staff at the publications. Thing is, a newspaper is sold primarily for the ads, not the content. This is even more true today with the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times, both of which are oned by the same media baron. Thing is, if they ran this ad, they might face opprobium from, say, Planned Parenthood, or the pharmaceutical companies. They have a lot of money to spend, and they do so regularly. They are repeat customers, as it were, while Heroic Media is not. If the pro-abortion businesses pull their ads, the Tribune Company loses more money than they would get from the pro-life outfit. From a profit standpoint, far better to pull the pro-life ad.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Very likely. I wonder if it would be possible to find out just how much they get from such sources, then do a kickstarter to allow millions of pro-life people to offer them double to pull the ads and put in the pro-life ones instead?

  • Michael Lindner

    The interesting thing is I think the second version of the ad is more powerful than the first. Without the hand for scale, the baby looks more like a “full term” baby. Kudos to the pro-aborts for shooting themselves in the foot.

  • Sus_1

    I’m not defending the publications…

    The first picture could be very upsetting to a parent who has lost a baby not due to an abortion or who have spent months in the NICU. It might trigger bad memories.

    I also wonder about the dignity of the baby being used in an advertisement.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    What is so controvesial? I’ve seen pictures of abortions where there is blood and body parts. These are respectable pictures that show what the baby looks like at that age. It’s not controversey they are avoiding. It’s supporting their political agenda.

  • Bill S

    As I have said before, our affection for babies is an old survival instinct that we no longer need. Just because one thinks that a fetus is cute does not make abortion wrong in all cases. Will appealing to an obsolete survival instinct sway some people thereby making it a successful ad campaign? Probably. Are people who are not fooled by it evil? It depends on who you ask. Can a newspaper refuse to run an ad that offends people? Absolutely.

    • FW Ken

      Newspapers run offensive ads all the time, and were selectively Shocked and Dismayed at this one. Mr. Javier makes the best case below: they didn’t want to risk the wrath of the Planned Parenthood Mafia.

  • hotboogers

    Please bear with my confusion … what is the big difference? The two photos look like babies of similar developmental stages … one in a man’s hand, and one tucked into the famous fetal curl. What makes them so different? What am I missing?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X