Connect with us

Healthcare

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Published

on

Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

There are four tactics favored by many mainstream media outlets, including the NY Times, that help them fulfill their two primary goals. Let’s start with their goals since they’re blatant: get more eyeballs for their paid subscription model and help Democrats win elections.

How do they do this? They have standard journalistic strategies that work for them well because they’ve been around for so long. They have access to people, manpower to cover stories, and resources to acquire assets necessary to make their stories popular. Those are the positive strategies they use, strategies that every news outlet strives to benefit from to various degrees. But they also use four tactics that help them with their secondary goal of pushing the left’s agenda:

  1. Shock headlines. While they rarely go as far as smaller outlets or tabloids, they are masters among the “big boys” at generating headlines to make their points.
  2. Credible experts with an agenda. One can argue that this is a technique all good outlets use to push their various agendas, but nobody is as adept at it as the New York Times. For example, if they’re pushing global warming, they get the best activists with science studies degrees to push the narrative.
  3. Manipulative statistics. Again, this is a common tactic, but the NY Times has mastered it. They have stat-finders on staff who comb the various studies of the world to find data that supports their premise. If that sounds natural, let’s not forget the idea should be the other way around. They should use statistics to form their premise.
  4. Begging the question. Contrary to the popular use of the phrase, it actually refers to a logical fallacy in which a premise becomes the basis of evidence for the premise. Similar to circular reasoning, it assumes a disputed notion to be factually correct.

In one editorial they published yesterday, they used the four tactics all at once. The title of the story is, “Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.”

I won’t link to it.

The article itself is an exercise in begging the question. For the statement in the headline to be remotely true, one has to assume that the preborn baby that’s aborted is not a life. If it were a life, then the statement would be (and in fact, is) ludicrous.

Of course, it obviously makes excellent use of the first tactic, the shock headline. I rarely read anything from their news outlet anymore, but it got me to click through and read it. When I did, I realized exactly what they were doing. First, they used the second tactic, a credible expert with an agenda, to not only help with the article but to actually write it. In this case, the expert is Dr. Warren M. Hern. His expertise is being a physician and epidemiologist who specializes in late-abortion “services.”

Dr. Hern proceeds to use the third tactic, manipulative statistics, to make his point that abortions are less likely to kill the mother than pregnancy or childbirth. Is it true? Absolutely. I learned this myself when my wife nearly died as our fifth child was lost in a miscarriage. Both pregnancy and childbirth are risks to mothers, much more so than abortions.

Nobody can dispute this fact. But the way this fact and others are framed, such as a statistic showing African-American women were more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than Caucasian women, were intended to be terrifying to mothers and to support his claim that pregnancy kills the mother at a higher rate than abortion.

But again, his entire argument relies on the notion that the child in the womb is not actually a life.

We are faced with a society in which a large percentage feel the same way. They have to in order to maintain their own self-perception of not doing harm to another human. Otherwise, abortion becomes murder. The only way it can’t be seen as murder is if the baby inside the mother isn’t seen as life.

This is why it’s so very important we start looking at abortion in America as more than just a political or even religious issue. It’s a cultural issue, one in which we are failing to deliver the right message. Most people can be made to appreciate the value of the life within the womb if they’re allowed to look beyond the politics. They are getting bombarded with the same two messages. Pro-abortion activists say they’re defending women’s rights. Pro-life activists say they’re defending the baby’s rights. Both arguments can have merit based on how a person perceives the baby in the womb. If it’s seen as a life, it’s hard to say that life has no right to live. If it’s seen as a parasite, clump of cells, or “potential” human, then the rights of the mother prevail.

Articles like this one in the NY Times are meant to change the way culture perceives abortion. We must fight back by continuing to push reality, that a baby in the womb is a life. We have the truth on our side. It’s time to use it.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Healthcare

The real reason Trump’s healthcare transparency executive order could be huge

Published

on

The real reason Trumps healthcare transparency executive order could be huge

The standard talking heads, pundits, and lobbyists have been weighing in on the President’s executive order, signed today, that adds transparency to pricing for medical procedures, among other things. In all the hot takes, I didn’t hear a single mention of the biggest thing this order could someday bring to the people: Checks on health insurance companies.

The health insurance companies themselves are very aware of this potential, which is why they’re balking already.

“Publicly disclosing competitively negotiated, proprietary rates will reduce competition and push prices higher — not lower — for consumers, patients, and taxpayers,” said Matt Eyles, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans in a statement. He says it will perpetuate “the old days of the American health care system paying for volume over value. We know that is a formula for higher costs and worse care for everyone.”

This statement is, of course, bogus. It’s a smokescreen. It’s an attempt to confuse the masses as they try to decipher what this really means. To understand that, we have to go back to the days before Obamacare when pricing was the biggest problem with the system. Aspirins costing $15 each. Diapers costing $25 each. All the while, most Americans didn’t take notice because the bills went to the health insurance companies. Sure, patients received an itemized bill, but the bottom line was the deductible, so checking and adding up costs on several pages of the bill was not as common as it should have been.

Obamacare was envisioned to change this, but in the wrong way. Instead of working to reduce the cost of health insurance by reducing the cost of healthcare itself, Obamacare shrouded health insurance companies in even more smokescreens. It not only made it unnecessary but almost impossible to know the actual costs of things. The reason is obvious if you take a look at the industry as a whole. It behooves health insurance companies to promote higher costs of healthcare because with the mandate to buy insurance, health plans needed to justify their own high costs. They weren’t just pulling from the consumers’ wallets. Now, they were pulling from the government’s coffers, so the opportunity to raise premiums had to jibe with high costs of medical procedures.

Hospitals and drug companies were ready and willing to oblige. Their potential for profits increased under Obamacare just as health insurance companies were able to profit.

All of this may sound greedy, but these are all just side effects of Obamacare’s secretive protections. Some were going to take advantage of it, so it behooved everyone to take advantage of it. There was no incentive for competition. There was no need to charge fair pricing when the government was willing to pay high prices and force the people to do the same.

President Trump’s executive order doesn’t change any of this. But here’s the thing. If we can legislate our way out of Obamacare – a promise made by the GOP for six years before they actually had the power to do so – then the resulting free market health industry will be ripe for competition. Pricing transparency will be extremely important in a post-Obamacare world, assuming that world doesn’t go in the other direction with single-payer or Medicare-for-All.

If DC can someday finally pull the plug on Obamacare and not replace it with one of the Democrats’ worse ideas, then this executive order will be huge in a free market healthcare system with consumer knowledge and competition for business.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

British judge decrees child aborted – UPDATE: Appeals court overturns decree

Published

on

British judge decrees child aborted because mother has learning disability

Update: An appellate court overturned the decision!

Original Story:

The easiest way to see what values and policies the far-left in the United States will adopt in the future, just watch what the far-left in European nations do. As Europe goes, American progressives follow. That’s why the latest story of judicial overreach, disregarded human rights, and abortion-as-a-solution coming from the UK is so disconcerting.

A British judge has ordered a 22-week-pregnant woman to abort her child, citing the woman’s mental capacity as evidence she is unfit to provide financial support or make proper medical decisions. The woman, whose name is being withheld, has the mental capacity of a 6-8 year old, according to a report by the NY Times.

Here are some pertinent facts:

  • The woman has indicated she wants to have the child
  • The woman’s mother has indicated she will take care of the child
  • The judge is making the decision because she feels the woman would suffer trauma if the baby were taken away in the future

Opinion

This is how the left dehumanizing preborn babies. They take a case in which the “best interests” of a woman with a learning disability supersede all other considerations. Her life is not in danger. She has the support of her mother, who is a lawyer, former social worker, and former midwife. The family wants to care for this child, but the potential hurt feelings of the mother in a hypothetical future situation in which the child must be taken away for some strange reason is all the judge is considering.

The judge is ordering the end of a life against the wishes of the family because of a hypothetical.

Forcing adoption, while a violation against the family, would be a solution that solves the made-up problems the judge has imposed to justify killing the child, but that isn’t even a consideration.

When governments can not only allow but decree when a child should be aborted, we should have zero doubt we’ve entered a very dangerous time in human history. It’s medieval, archaic thinking camouflaged by modern progressive sensibilities.

If progressives were truly compassionate, they’d be calling for the baby and the mother to be cared for instead of end one’s life and controlling the other’s.

Quote

“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the state to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion.” – Judge Nathalie Lieven

Final Thoughts

Human rights are clearly being violated by this judge. The mother wants to have the baby. The mother’s mother wants to help care for the baby. The judge believes adoption would be too traumatic. Everything about this is infuriating.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

HHS Secretary Alex Azar on court ruling against abortion providers

Published

on

HHS Secretary Alex Azar on court ruling against abortion providers

“For too long that money has been used to subsidize the provision of abortion contrary to statute. Congress has said that you cannot support abortion as a method of family planning. We’re just finally enforcing it.”

– Alex Azar

There’s a ton of backlash coming from the pro-abortion lobby regarding the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the administration’s policy regarding Title X and how abortion providers are allowed to operate. The new policy, announced last year, would withdraw federal Title X funding from any medical facility that provides abortions, as well as abortion counseling or abortion referrals.

This is a pro-life administration, and while many will balk at the lack of action that has been synonymous with he Republican Party for years, this move by the administration solidifies its standing as a strong opponent of abortion providers.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending