September 28, 2004, 07:59 AM
Chron leaps to defense of Planned Parenthood
We've always known that the Chronicle backs Planned Parenthood, which is by far the nation's largest abortion provider. They fund them. They gladly receive their awards. Accordingly, I fail to see why the Chronicle saw fit to give us their opinion about the tactics employed by pro-lifers in boycotting builders and design firms that do business with Planned Parenthood. Their views are, after all, a foregone conclusion:
In the past year, members of the anti-abortion movement in Texas have attempted to use boycotts for their own ends. But they've gotten some key tactics wrong. Rather than exemplifying peaceful resolve, they appear to be harassing, threatening, even lying about people they want to persuade. Even the movement's target — Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization dedicated to women's health — differs from the for-profit businesses targeted by boycotts in the past.
Sure, when people think of Planned Parenthood, all they think of is “a nonprofit organization dedicated to women's health.” Uh-huh. I'm certain the fact that they perform such a disproportionate number of abortions didn't even cross the Chronicle's mind.
The truth is that Planned Parenthood rakes in a great deal of money from the abortion business. One might even say that they've cornered that particular market; their revenues certainly exceed their expenses. But even as a supposed nonprofit, Planned Parenthood can and should be influenced by advocacy. They aren't shielded by their status if what they're doing is wrong.
The Chronicle only opposes these tactics because they don't want Planned Parenthood challenged. The issue isn't that they think construction boycotts are innately unfair, or anything of that nature. That wouldn't be worth writing an editorial about. What they find so objectionable is the idea that pro-lifers would stand up against an organization that the Chronicle supports.
This explains why the Chron deems it necessary to trot out good ol' guilt by association to make its point:
Gimme a break! The actions of a fringe minority of the anti-abortion movement have no bearing on the actions of mainstream groups. Nor do they have to act meek and passive in their advocacy because they Chronicle irrationally believes them to bear responsibility for a few unaffliliated wackos. This is why guilt by association doesn't work. You'd think the Chronicle would know that.Anti-abortion activists, meanwhile, deserve some credit for seeking a legal method in making their case. Unfortunately, too many members of their loose-knit movement have already used violence — including murder — in the cause's name.
Last year, an abortion rights opponent drove a delivery van through the entrance of the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic. The driver had a long history of harassing Houston clinics and had served a year in federal prison for breaking a visiting doctor's windshield and threatening to kill him.
It is incumbent on the law-abiding protestors, therefore, to make sure their boycott tactics are devoid of bullying, harassment and even veiled threats.
Permalink | Chron Bias | Previous Entry | Next Entry