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:
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.
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.