Media, Media Bias
Abortion, Conservatives and the Media
by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor,
June 9, 2004
Last week, abortion surfaced as an election issue when Conservative Party health critic, Rob Merrifield, said that women who are about to have an abortion should receive counseling before they make a final decision to have the procedure. This was all the left wing media needed to get going about how Conservative leader Stephen Harper has a secret agenda that includes making abortion illegal.
It didn’t seem to matter that Merrifield resigned his post as critic because what he said was not party policy.
It didn’t seem to matter that Stephen Harper quickly said what he has always said--that a Harper government would not introduce new abortion legislation, nor would a referendum on the subject be held.
It didn’t seem to matter that Merrifield was not proposing legislation that would make counseling mandatory.
It didn’t seem to matter that abortion counseling falls under the area of health and falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
And more importantly, it didn’t seem to matter that Prime Minister Paul Martin has said the same thing. Martin said, "I think you should always refer (women seeking abortions) to counseling".
All that mattered was that the media could use Merrifield’s statements to help the Liberals paint the Conservatives as extremist.
In a June 3 editorial, the Toronto Star criticized Harper for not making his position on abortion clear. By that they mean his personal opinion. The Star wants Harper to say that he is pro-life so that they can label him as some sort of religious zealot. As far as his political position goes, he has made that clear. He will not introduce legislation that would criminalize abortion, nor will he hold a referendum on the subject. To most people, Harper’s position on abortion couldn’t be clearer.
The paper paints Paul Martin as clear on where he stands. Martin has said that as a legislator, he’s pro-choice. Martin’s position "as a legislator" is the same as Harper’s; no change to the status quo. But the Star left out why Martin used the words "as a legislator". Those words only make sense if they are interpreted as being that Paul Martin, who portrays himself as a devout Catholic, is personally pro-life but will legislate as pro-choice. There is no difference between the positions taken by the two leaders but you can’t tell the Toronto Star that.
The paper also chastises the Conservative leader for saying that he will allow a free vote on a private member’s bill concerning abortion if one is introduced in the House. The Star conveniently leaves out the fact that private member’s bills have about a one per cent chance of making it to a vote and when they do they are usually subject to a free vote. The editorial also fails to point out that if a private member’s bill is introduced, it is just as likely to be introduced by a Liberal member--many of whom are pro-life.
The Toronto Star’s editorial was nothing more than the use of selected facts to paint Stephen Harper and the Conservatives as extremists.
Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Arthur can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
| 
