The latest examples come courtesy of their article, “Abortion battle rages in state legislatures“. The CNN article states:
The battle over a hot-button issue has been raging in state legislatures across the country this year with an unprecedented number of bills aimed at restricting abortions.
My comment: Notice how CNN frames the issue as “restricting abortion” not protecting human life.
An advocacy group published a study this week contending that “hostility” toward abortion rights is on the rise.
My comment: The “advocacy group” as we will later see is the abortion supporting Guttmacher Institute founded as a division of Planned Parenthood and named after former Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher.
It’s pretty much an all-out, anti-abortion free-for-all out there,” said Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute.
My comment: There is no disclosure that the Guttmacher Institute was started by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain. There is also not disclosure that the Guttmacher Institute doesn’t just release research about abortion but they take a policy position supporting the choice to abort one’s child.
Anti-abortion activists took issue with the term “hostility.”
My comment: Notice how the right-to-abortion side is called an “advocacy group” while the right-to-life side is called the more grubby term “anti-abortion activists”. Why not use the term right-to-life advocate instead? Notice that there is no mention of the right-to-life or life being part of the equation as to why one opposes abortion.
Of those, 61 bills in 25 states focus on prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortions.
My comment: There is no mention that the insurance coverage for abortion that is being prohibited is for plans that receive subsidies from taxpayers. These prohibitions of coverage prevent taxpayer funds from being used to pay for insurance plans that coverage abortion. A very mainstream idea considering that polls (including CNN’s own) have found that 60%+ of the American people oppose taxpayer funded abortions.
On page 2 of the CNN article it states:
The Supreme Court heard the landmark Roe v. Wade case more than three decades ago. In that time, a generation of women has taken abortion rights for granted.
My comment: Once again CNN frames the debate as about abortion rights. It also talks of women taking the right to abortion for granted as if this is something that is inherently good for women. It assumes that women gain something from being able to have the choice to abort their children. I argue that women don’t gain from abortion, in fact, over half of those aborted around the world are females. Instead of pondering once about the right to life that has been lost for millions of children, CNN puts the focus on the right to abortion.
The article did have a good number of well selected quotes from pro-life leaders and for that I am grateful. Could the CNN article be far more biased for abortion like Salon, Newsweek, or Huffington Post? Sure, but that doesn’t excuse the bias that is present — even if unintended. I hope this analysis has been enlightening and if you have an interest in identifying and responding to media bias, please drop me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.