- Text smaller
- Text bigger
The mom, Julie Armas, an obstetrics nurse herself, said she and her husband Alex “wept for days” when they saw the picture. “I was in total awe. The photo reminds us my pregnancy isn’t about disability or illness, it’s about a little person!”
What kind of photo elicits a response as emotional as that? A picture of a baby whose life is being saved in a revolutionary operation performed while the baby is still within the mom’s uterus. Samuel, age 21 weeks (pre-birth), is the youngest child ever to undergo this history-making procedure. The photo below shows Samuel’s tiny hand reaching out from his mother’s womb clasping the finger of his surgeon, Dr. Joseph Bruner.
Matt Drudge of Fox News Network was forbidden by network management to display that very same photo to his program’s viewers this past weekend. But what was Matt’s purpose? I think we should let Mrs. Armas’ words speak for Matt (with the substitution of a few key words), “The photo reminds us that ‘abortion’ isn’t about ‘choice’ or ‘need,’ it’s about a little person!” That simple truth is so threatening that even the “We report, you decide” folks refuse to air it.
“He was using this photo from the National Enquirer as a jumping-off point to talk about partial-birth abortion,” said Fox spokesman Brian Lewis. “It was a picture of an emergency operation for spina bifida. We thought it was a blatant misrepresentation. It was a straight editorial decision.”
Why, Mr. Lewis would Matt Drudge use a picture of a baby undergoing a medical procedure when his main point concerned abortion? You’re a newsman, right? So you are supposed to be smart and savvy enough to know the answer as well. We think YOU may be guilty of a “blatant misrepresentation” in the defense of your decision.
A question for you: Would you have allowed Matt to make his point by displaying a picture of a different pre-birth child — this one a victim of abortion? Think about your answer before you make it. If your stated concern was genuine, you must have told Drudge something like the following, “Matt, you can’t misrepresent this operation as an abortion, but if you would like to show a picture of a baby really being aborted, go for it!” Did it go something like that? Yeah, you made a straight editorial decision: “No way is Fox going there!”
If memory serves, no picture of an aborted baby’s body or video has ever been seen in an establishment paper or on an establishment network. The word censorship comes to mind. But wait, Fox News Network is supposed to be the alternative to the network establishments. You know, “fair and balanced.” Guys, the proof is in the pudding. Don’t carve out a niche for yourself and then betray your viewers expectations. Fearless journalism is risky but the risk is well worth the reward: the vindication of truth.
Mr. Lewis, this photo was appropriate not only because there was no other alternative. It captures for all time the inescapable fact that abortion kills a baby. Little Samuel’s parents did all they could to save the life of their child, but they didn’t have to. In fact, Mrs. Armas could have waited till the day before Sam’s due date and insisted on her right to a partial-birth abortion. That’s right Mr. Lewis. On D-day, at 9 months old, Samuel could be legally aborted even if his mother’s life were not at stake. Of course, Mr. Armas would have no legal right to stop her.
My point should be clear! In discussing evil and death, a portrait of love and life is the finest, most compelling argument.
Bravo Matt! No matter who wins this battle you won the war for principle.
I have a personal challenge to make. I have long believed abortion procedures should be as accessible in broadcast as other operations like brain, heart and eye surgery. For anyone who has access to a video tape of a partial birth abortion, I will commit to “airing” it on WorldNetDaily (if it meets our standards). I think everyone should be fully informed before undergoing surgery, counseling a loved one, or voting on a bill. Only the stark reality of truth can provide that.