By Gudrun Schultz
NEW YORK, March 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Time Magazine’s February cover story on crisis pregnancy centers (CPC’s) was little more than a familiar exercise in pro-abortion rhetoric, say disappointed pro-life critics, offering biased reporting based heavily on interviews with the leading U.S. abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
The title of the Canadian issue, published Feb. 26, was a good indicator of author Nancy Gibbs’ lean. The story ran under the headline, “The Abortion Campaign You Never Hear About: Crisis pregnancy centers are working to win over one woman at a time. But are they playing fair?” The U.S. issue, released Feb.15, was titled simply, “The Grassroots Abortion War.”
The nine-page article purported to examine the reasons for the increasing numbers of CPCs in the U.S, exploring the “new face” of the pro-life movement seen in the thousands of CPC’s offering women alternatives to abortion.
Critics charge that the article failed dismally to shake off a pro-abortion bias, however, ignoring central concerns raised by CPCs and parroting information provided by abortion centers.
“Gibbs’ article falls into the same traps and plays the same game the dominant media has played in its coverage of abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court decision, titled Roe v. Wade, first legalized the practice in 1973,” wrote Daniel Zanoza for the Illinois Family Institute Media Watch.
“The article gives only passing reference to issues including women’s mental health after having an abortion, the link between abortion and breast cancer, the failure by research organizations to address the physical affects abortion has on a woman, etc.”
Time’s coverage was criticized by pro-life groups for implying that CPCs employ fear mongering to intimidate women into deciding against abortion by giving them inaccurate scientific information on the risks associated with the procedure—The IFI pointed out that the risks abortion poses to women’s mental and physical health are well-documented by multiple international research sources.
The IFI quoted Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, as saying, “If Time Magazine would read the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) website, they would discover that the agency recognizes one of two breast cancer risks associated with abortion.”
In failing to address the impact of abortion on women’s mental health Gibbs ignored a significant factor in the increasing demand for CPCs, suggested one pro-life Canadian reader to LifeSiteNews.com.
“Why do so many people feel compelled to set up more and more centers all the time? Could it be [because] one out of two women in America obtain abortions and feel the remorse and grief that follows? My guess is that since Roe vs. Wade, people are getting in touch with their feelings. Could they be reaching out in response after recognizing they suffer from Post Abortion Stress Disorder?”
Elizabeth Verchio, director of the post-abortion counseling service Victims of Choice, told the IFI that mental health risks associated with abortion can’t be ignored and in fact appear to be getting worse.
“Sadly, where the emotional residue formerly manifested itself after a decade or longer, we are now seeing cases of depression and anxiety much earlier after a woman has an abortion. There is a need for greater study regarding this phenomenon. But it is happening. We’re seeing it every day and it is something that cannot be denied.”
The IFI condemned the Time magazine article for allowing Planned Parenthood employees to offer the final word on controversial issues raised by the CPCs, saying the article added “insult to injury concerning the issue of journalistic objectivity” by giving authority to abortion providers.
“Critics of Planned Parenthood claim the organization’s primary objective is to provide abortions and the bottom line is their driving force,” wrote Zanoza.
Carol Wright, former president and current Board member of Illinois Citizens for Life, told the IFI, “It is truly amazing that Planned Parenthood has the nerve to present itself as an organization working to reduce unwanted pregnancies.”
“Operating as a ‘non-profit’ organization, their profits for last year were over $60 million. One third of their income comes from providing abortion. In the past twenty years, their percentage of the total abortion business in this country has risen from 5% to 20%. For each adoption referral they commit 180 abortions.”
See coverage by IFI Media Watch:
https://www.illinoisfamily.org/informed/default.asp?s=822
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Evidence of Media Bias: Big Three Networks Ignore March for Life but not ‘Peace Surge’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07013104.html