I used the link from Political Outcast to obtain this source material. They did a good cover story; however, the photo (and object of the commentary) was left out.  Their commentary included below Live Action News.

Live Action News

Media

Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial”

A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”

The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media.

The ad features a hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote, “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak Up.”

Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.

“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”

The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.

“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.

Last week after the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Heroic Media put out a statement requesting that the pro-life community contact their senators and encourage them to consider and support the Act.

“Americans deserve to know the truth about the children sentenced to die for no fault of their own and that we have a chance to spare some of them through this legislation,” Young said.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prevents an abortionist from performing an abortion at or after 20 weeks, based on empirical scientific medical evidence that proves that unborn babies can feel pain. Science shows that at eight weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch, and at 20 weeks, the unborn baby responds to what would be felt as pain.

The image shows a 20- to 24-week-old baby in a person’s hands. Heroic Media’s goal was to show what life looks like at 20 weeks. The non-profit organization has resubmitted the ad with a different image, now one of a 20-week-old baby in utero.

The Chicago Tribune has now agreed to run the ad with the second image as long as Heroic Media indicates that it is an advertisement.

“Our hope is that the American public begins to advance this debate with both the mother and child in mind,” Young said.

Heroic Media is a non-profit whose mission is to educate the public in general and reach women facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives through the use of mass media, such as television commercials, internet outreach, and billboards.

“This issue, the late-term killing of developing children, is one that should be addressed in the U.S. Senate, and we encourage our fellow citizens to let their Senators know our desire to see that happen,” Young said.

About Caleb Parke

        Caleb Parke is a recent graduate of Grove City College in Pennsylvania, born and raised on a small horse farm in Findlay, Ohio. He is a nerd for faith and freedom. You can follow him on twitter (@calebparke) and connect on Facebook.         View all posts by Caleb Parke →                                     

http://liveactionnews.org/major-papers-reject-pro-life-ad-image-of-baby-too-controversial/

3 Major Newspapers Refuse Pro-Life Ad:  Baby Pictures  Are “Too Controversial”

A pro-life organization called Heroic Media created an ad raising awareness  of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would outlaw abortions  after 20 weeks. The ad featured a baby around 20 to 24 weeks being held  in a person’s hand. The caption beside the image read:  “This child has  no voice, which is why it needs yours.”

This group wanted to purchase ad space from certain newspapers, but three  major newspapers turned them down, because the image of the small child was “too  controversial.” It was the Chicago Tribune, LA Times and USA Today  that refused to run their ad.

So, Heroic Media changed the image to be of an unborn child in utero. The  Chicago Tribune decided that that was not “too controversial” as  long as the group indicated clearly that it was an advertisement. They agreed to  run the revised ad.

I don’t get what’s so “controversial” about a very small child. One of the  things Heroic Media wanted to get across was what life looked like at 20 weeks,  which is the legal threshold defined in the pro-life bill that passed the House  recently. They wanted to impress their viewers with how much of a baby a baby  really is at 20 weeks.

Probably the newspapers were worried about their readership. Readers might be  offended that they advertised for a pro-life group using a premature born baby  instead of an unborn one. Readers might accuse the newspapers of promoting an  advertisement that appeals to the emotions of others to support a pro-life  cause. Then, they might unsubscribe. And that means less money for the  newspaper.

Remember what happened to Matt Drudge in 1999? He wanted to use a picture of  an unborn child’s hand reaching through his mother’s uterus and holding on to  the doctor’s finger. The Fox network did not allow this, because they didn’t  want him using the picture to push a pro-life message. They argued that since  the photo wasn’t of an abortion, but of an unborn child being treated for spina  bifida, it had nothing to do with abortion and therefore, should not be used.  That’s when Drudge said the network was just trying to censor him, and he  left.

Of all the horrible and vulgar things that are allowed to be published in  newspapers and television shows, one of the few things that is just “too  controversial” to publish is a picture of a very young baby. Fox’s excuse was  that the photo wasn’t really related to abortion. Give me a break. Like they  really care about an image’s relevance to their topic. If it were any other  issue, they’d simply go for the most shocking picture. That’s what helps their  viewership. Same with newspapers. But if it’s a child, and the message is a  pro-life one, then all of sudden relevance becomes very important, and besides,  baby pictures are just “too controversial.”

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/3-major-newspapers-refuse-pro-life-ad-baby-pictures-are-too-controversial/#ixzz2YTc3fohA

Advertisements