[The Wichita Eagle, Kansas’ largest newspaper, has published an editorial by Operation Rescue President Troy Newman concerning the public use of graphic photos of aborted children. Newman’s editorial was written in response to an editorial by columnist Randy Scholfield published in the Wichita Eagle on Friday, October 14, 2005, entitled “Photos Show Only Part of the Truth.” Troy's article is reprinted below in it's entirity. -Operation Rescue Staff]
Posted on Tue, Oct. 18, 2005
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/12926855.htm
PHOTOS DISTILL THE TRUTH
BY TROY NEWMAN
The recent fury over of the public use of aborted baby photos is part of an ongoing debate on the use of graphic photographic imagery that has raged ever since Matthew Brady first published pictures of Civil War battlefields laden with the grotesque images of dead and dying soldiers.
In the late 1800s, Joseph Pulitzer’s pioneering work in the New York World and St. Louis Post-Dispatch helped forge modern newspaper journalism, including the emerging field of photojournalism. Pulitzer is said to have demanded that photographs be used to support the journalists’ text.
The prestigious Pulitzer Prize for photography has been coveted by every photojournalist since Milton Brooks of the Detroit News won it in 1942 for his violent photo titled “Ford Strikers Riot.”
The subject matter of many subsequent winners has been no less graphic. Harry Trask won the coveted prize for his dramatic photographic sequence of the sinking of the Andrea Doria; Yasushi Nagao for his graphic photograph “Tokyo Stabbing”; and Huynh Cong Ut for his photograph “The Terror of War,” depicting burned, naked children running from the midst of an American napalm attack. These and other images of the horror of violence and injustice have served as catalysts for social change.
The graphic photographs all summarize an important story with an image. Each of these prize-winning pictures tells a larger story with a single image — a moment frozen in time — that could not be communicated as fully or as powerfully any other way.
A picture of an aborted child is no different.
With one image of a broken body of an aborted child, three decades of debate are encapsulated into one finite and defining moment. Volumes of opinion articles and all the debate over a woman’s right to choose, or whether it is her body, become simply rhetoric when faced with just one image of the brutality of abortion.
The definitive answers to Randy Schofield’s rhetorical questions (“Photos show only part of the truth,” Oct. 14 Opinion) are found in the picture so blatantly absent from his column. The photos show brutally dismembered babies, with recognizable parts. They spark outrage at the inhumanity of the act, as well they should. They bring the debate down to terms so simple even a child can understand it: Live baby good; dead baby bad.
Even the most uninvolved in political matters or moral issues can recognize that this kind of cruelty would not be tolerated on animals, and this prompts the question: Why do we allow it on defenseless human beings at the most vulnerable stage of their lives?
Although the pictures simplify the argument, Scholfield wants to complicate the debate. Scholfield questions the circumstances of the child’s abortion, as if rape, maternal age or genetic flaws could possibly justify this inhumane act.
The fact that such circumstances account for less than 2 percent of all abortions was information left conveniently out of Scholfield’s arguments. An overwhelming 98 percent of all abortions are for the sake of convenience, according to statistics gathered by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
The graphic images of aborted babies expose the truth that the pro-abortion side doesn’t want the public to know. The images tear the facade of respectability from the abortion industry and show abortion for the barbaric act it really is.
Just as the horrific photos of Matthew Brady and many Pulitzer Prize winners are responsible for exposing injustices, pricking consciences and bringing about social change, the images of aborted babies are educating the public about an issue in a way that melts away the euphemistic terminology on both sides. And much to the angst of those who would like to censor the reality conveyed by the abortion images, Americans are becoming increasingly pro-life as a result.
——————————————————————————–
Troy Newman of Wichita is president of Operation Rescue.
also from the Alan Guttmacher Institute website:
“Evidence from around the world shows that placing restrictions on abortion to make it harder to obtain has much more to do with making it less safe than making it rarer, ” says Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute. “Yet in the United States, abortion opponents take credit for the mounting state and federal restrictions on abortion, rather than working to reduce unintended pregnancy to begin with.”
88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions.
56% of women having abortions are in their 20s;
61% have one or more children;
67% have never married;
57% are economically disadvantaged;
88% live in a metropolitan area; and
78% report a religious affiliation.
A substantial proportion of the 11% decline in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000 resulted from women’s use of emergency contraception (EC), according to a new analysis of contraceptive use among more than 10,000 U.S. women having abortions in 2000-2001. Forty-six percent of women surveyed were not using a contraceptive method in the month in which they became pregnant, whereas 54% were using a method. The analysis, conducted by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), estimates that 51,000 abortions were prevented by EC use in 2000–47,000 more than in 1994, when only 4,000 abortions were averted through EC. Overall, 110,000 fewer abortions occurred in 2000 than in 1994; increased use of EC may account for up to 43% of the total decline.
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
gpantz, I’m not sure exactly what your intended points are, but I note the following:
1. If I’m correct, the Alan Guttmacher Institute is simply an arm of Planned Parenthood — not exactly the most unbiased source of information — and many of the statistical “evidence” that Institute puts forth has been shown to be inaccurate.
2. Even if any given set of numbers is accurate, again, what’s the point? That a certain segment of abortions come in the first 12 weeks of pregancy? That women who have them come from all walks of life? And that they give varied (but seemingly objectively poor) reasons for having them? Abortion is, what it is, no matter what figures are trotted out to paint it as something other than it is — which is the killing of a child. I find the graphic pictures, referenced in the article we’re both commenting on, to be demonstrable evidence of that.
3. I have a personal comment about the reasons given for havig abortions. As to “other responsibilities,” everybody ALWAYS has SOME responsibilities. Most all of us have work, school, family & other commitments. Few of us can’t simpy juggle those if we have to, for our children. That’s what most Americans do: They balance, juggle, whatever you call it. Not wanting to juggle, or refusing to, is a bad reason for killing a baby. As to those who say they “can’t afford it,” the more pointed question usually is, “can you afford a baby without curtailing a particular standard of material living you want/have grown accustomed to?” Usually, I suspect that’s the bigger reason. No one ever has as much moey as they would like, unless you pitch for the Yankees. As to the last reason given — spousal problems, anyone whose ever been married (and had children!) knows that no relationship is ever perfect, but again the reasons stated are not really acceptable reasons for snuffing out a life. As to any truly failing relationship, killing a blameless child is not an acceptable way of dealing with that relationship.
Troy, Keep up the Good Work!
Frank from NJ
> Dear Friends of Life,
> As an African-American, whenever I see a picture of an aborted
> baby, I am reminded of the gruesome picture of the murdered Emmet
> Till (of the wolf-whistle slaying) that his mother wanted people
> to see. Mrs. Mamie Mobley had
> stated, “Let the people see…” and Emmett’s picture was published in
> newspapers and magazines around the world in 1955.
> This picture was worth more than
> a thousand words and seemed to give momentum to the Civil Rights
> Movement which many white people in the U.S.A,. and many people in
> foreign countries supported.
> Yours truly,
> Pearl C. Ware,
> Candidate for the New York Assembly
> l980,1982
> Candidate for the New York State Senate,
> 1984 on the Right-to-Life
> Party Line and the Conservative Party Line.
Actually, The Guttmacher Institute is not an arm of Planned Parenthood, it is independent of them. It is a research institute, and as a helping professional, I can tell you that their research published in Family Planning Perspectives and other journals, is regarded as good, sound research.
This is from their website:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. AGI publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, International Family Planning Perspectives, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy and special reports on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Institute’s mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.
Nice try Jeanne, but anybody who is in the know, realizes Guttmacher is a planned parenthood shill, pumping out propaganda for the abortion industry.
The same people work both organizations.
There is nothing justifiable about folks who try to make pre-born child killing respectable.
They are nothing more than punk mouth pro-abort baby murderers, just like planned parenthood who spawned them.
rick
i can’t find any connection, could you please cite your source? i’m only seeking to find and distribute facts.
Check out the history of their name sake.
In 1962, Guttmacher became president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a position he held until his death.
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PT_articles/April-June_2000/Alan_F__Guttmacher,_Peoples_Physician.htm