Topic: Media Research Center
We've documented how the Media Research Center, along with other right-wing media, tried to discredit the story of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio was forced to go to Indiana for an abortion due to Ohio's highly restrictive yet ambiguous anti-abortion laws, then complained when they were called out for not apologizing when the story was found to be true and instead pivoting to hyping that the alleged perpetrator was an undocumented immigrant. It should be no surprise that the MRC is complaining that the doctor who performed the abortion on the girl is being allowed to appear on TV to discuss abortion and related issues. Curtis Houck groused in a July 27 post, making sure to tag Dr. Caitlin Bernard with the pejorative tag of "abortionist":
Since the overturning of disinformation campaign seeking to terrify women into believing miscarriages will be criminalized and women will die from medical complications related to pregnancies. It’s been so sinister that it would make even the Russians jealous.
In turn, it made sense CBS would spend Tuesday and Wednesday worshipping Dr. Caitlyn Bernard, the Indiana abortionist who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio.
The interview first aired on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News with anchor Norah O’Donnell, who said Bernard’s interview came amid protests in Indiana over a debate among lawmakers for an abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother Of course, O’Donnell chose to deceive viewers by leaving out that last exception.
Houck censored the fact that many "life of the mother" execptions are vaguely written and can keep a doctor from acting in the best interest of the mother out of fear of being criminally charged. Houck continued:
To close out, O’Donnell invited Bernard to “address concerns by conservatives or those with deeply held religious beliefs that abortion is immoral and wrong.”
Bernard insisted that “if you don't believe that you would have an abortion, then don't have one” and thus one shouldn’t “stop other people from accessing medical care that they need.”
Considering the Obama administration sued nuns and a Biden administration order would force religious hospitals (such as Catholic-backed institutions) to perform abortions, that’s also a lie.
Houck didn't explain why Catholic or religious hospitals should be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion in an emergency, which is what the Biden administration executive order would do.
A July 31 post by Jorge Bonilla complained that "corporate media" coverage of the rape story wasn't embracing the right-wing shift to obsessing over the immigration status of the perpetrator and that "coverage continues to center around abortionist Dr. Caitlin Bernard, who corporate media have decided to simultaneously cast as both the true hero and 'real victim' of this horrendous story." Bonilla censored mention of the right-wing media's failed attempt to frame the story as a hoax that created a victim narrative for Bernard.
When Bernard appeared on TV again, Aidan Moorehouse was there to complain about it -- and pretend there are no issues with such narrow exceptions -- in an Aug. 5 post:
Since she performed an abortion on a 10-year-old Ohioan rape victim, Indiana abortionist Dr. Caitlin Bernard has become something of an icon to the post-Roe pro-abortion movement. New Day co-host Brianna Keilar interviewed Bernard on Friday morning to voice her opposition to Indiana’s pending abortion bill, despite the bill containing exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother (the most commonly accepted exceptions).
After outlining the contents of the bill (which can be read here), Keilar played the interview, which had been taped prior to it being shown live. She began by asking Dr. Bernard, “You've treated many patients who would fall into these categories. What, to you, is the problem with relying on those exceptions?”
On the question of enforcing the exceptions, Bernard fretted the laws would cause doctors to second-guess themselves when the mother’s life is in danger, “The impact on the physicians means that they can't take care of patients the way that they need to be able to and patients will be hurt.”
This line has been repeated ad nauseam by abortion advocates and their allies in the media, but it doesn’t apply at all in this case because, again, the law in question makes an exception to save the life of the mother. To put it bluntly, any failure to act in such a situation would rest on the doctors who failed to understand the full implications of a law that so closely impacted their profession.
Moorehouse concluded by huffing:
When a pro-life bill imposes a total ban on abortion, the pro-abortion crowd laments the cruelty of leaving out exceptions for rare and traumatic circumstances. But when a pro-life bill carves out exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, it suddenly becomes a question of medical privacy. And the liberal media will eagerly promote both angles whenever they get the opportunity.
Moorehouse didn't mention that the MRC supports even more extreme restrictions on abortion, including creating an Orwellian surveillance state to monitor women who might cross state lines to have one.
UPDATE: Houck is being dishonest by claiming that "the Obama administration sued nuns." In fact, the opposite is true: the nuns sued the Obama administration in an effort to keep it from having to cover birth control in its health insurance.