The New York Times covered the 2022 annual pro-life March for Life rally in Saturday’s edition: “March for Life Rally Unfolds with Eye on Supreme Court” reported by Kate Zernike (back with a byline after a long absence) and Madeleine Ngo.
Each year the March for Life takes place in February around the anniversary the Supreme Court Decision. Roe V. Wade that legalized abortion, reliably draws tens of thousands of pro-lifers, many of them young people, out into the winter cold.
The story…isn’t good, though better than the non-coverage or petulant coverage of previous years. In 2013, after a five-year absence of print stories, the paper covered the march, only to pair a middling story with one chiding pro-life marchers for not also being anti-gun.
Unsaleable non-abortion related rage Times double standard cropped up:
In the freezing cold, they were all wrapped up in scarves and thick coats. It is largely unknownThe rally started at noon, and the participants began to gather a little while before.
The “unmasked” are only a problem for the Times when crowds gather to mark things the paper doesn’t approve of, like Trump Rose Garden ceremonies and college football games. Black Lives Matter protests/riots and NBA championship celebrations don’t draw similar concerns.
As if they were obliged to report on the prolife side of things, the reporters allowed the tacky opposition story to take over valuable space. That’s not how the paper treats left-wing protests — reverently, with dissent either ignored or condemned.
The Times ran a brief, respectful video and three images within the online version of the article – two crowd shots and an image of an offensive tweet Catholics For Choice, having a disgraceful projectionist.
Wednesday evening Catholics for Choice, an abortion rights organization, broadcast messages in light from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Northeast Washington. This is the largest Catholic Church in North America. Anti-abortion protesters gathered inside for an all-night vigil.On the tower of basilica, messages noted that only one-fourth of women who have an abortion are Catholics and that 68% of Catholics surveyed support Roe. “Pro-choice Catholics, you are not alone,” read one.
Zernike, Ngo and others played the politically correctness game.
…. According to studies, a change in the decision would most affect women of low socioeconomic status, women of color and mothers who already have children.
The following is not an “argument,” but a factually accurate statement of the legal facts.
President of March for Life Ms. Mancini accused the March for Life of fear-mongering over the potential consequences of Roe falling. In interviews conducted prior to the march She argued that reversing the decision would just return abortion rights to states. They could decide in accordance with the will of the citizens.
The pro-choice side was able to ignore emotional appeals.
Supporters of abortion rights argued that Roe’s overturning would have severe consequences for both women and their children.
It was a respectful ending:
As he looked around, Mr. Winne stated that he was optimistic that the younger generation would fight for ending abortion. “We’re clearly on the older end,” Mr. Winne said. “That’s an encouragement that this isn’t just something that we, as people in their 60s, are concerned about.”
About Post Author
