Caleb Parke at Live Action News reported last week that three major newspapers rejected an ad submitted by Heroic Media, which showed a life size image of a preborn baby between the ages of 20-24 weeks.
The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today all rejected the 1/2-page ad because the image made it “too controversial.”
This morning Heroic Media’s executive director Joe Young informed me that the Chicago Tribune agreed to run an alternative ad today, displayed above, which shows an ultrasound image of a 20-wk-old baby, obviously en utero. Meanwhile, the LA Times andUSA Today rejected the second ad as well.
“The second image takes up a lot more of the ad space than the original,” Joe noted, “a beautiful head and chest shot of a baby as opposed to one in hand.”
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
Several newspapers did agree to run the original ad, below, last week and this week. They included The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Austin Statesman, Dallas Morning News, and Houston Chronicle.
“I pointed out to the newspapers rejecting our ad that they have carried stories about the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act, the topic of the ad,” Joe said. “But they said the images ‘made the conversation too controversial.’ I was shocked that putting a face on a 20-wk-old baby now made it controversial.”
(I am reminded of an ad rejected by my local paper in 2006.)
I have no problem with the second image, although I agree with the censoring newspapers that the original image carries more impact. It somehow better conveys how sinister it would be to tear a baby that age apart. But that’s reality. It’s certainly not gory.
But far be it from newspapers to carry factual, controversial information – on abortion.
Reprinted with permission from JillStanek.com.