The Chicago Tribune, in refusing to run this picture but accepting a revised photo showing not this fetus but a picture of a live 20 week old baby en utero, in effect, declares, it finds publishing a picture of a dead baby unacceptable but has not problem showing a live baby which it has no problem allowing to be killed after maiming, pain and torture, in the act of abortion.
T
“It strikes me as ironic that a medically accurate fetal model was too controversial, when the actual babies being aborted are living humans with blood pulsing through their veins,” Marissa Cope, marketing and research director at Heroic Media, a pro-life apostolate, told CNA July 12.
Major newspapers that ran the original advertisement included the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Some papers ran the ad with the stipulation that the wording “made it clear that it was a paid advertisement,” Cope said.
Cope called the rejections “disappointing, but not surprising.”
The goal of the advertisement was to raise awareness of a baby’s development at 20 weeks gestation. Congress is currently considering a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, when an unborn child can likely feel pain.
There is evidence that fetuses can feel pain as early as 20 weeks, and they certainly can by 24 weeks.
On June 18, the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
It states, “there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier.”
Though the bill has passed the House, it must still pass the Senate, and the White House has suggested that if it arrives on President Obama's desk he will veto it.
via Major news outlets' rejection of pro-life ad 'not surprising' :: Catholic News Agency (CNA).
