I cannot believe the BBC's bias in this report. On an issue as controversial and serious as abortion, how can the BBC seriously get away with a report which expresses a proabortion view from beginning to end and only quotes a pro-abortion junior minister at the Department of Health and a representative of the proabortion International Planned Parenthood Federation? Pretty much every sentence in this report is objectionable and biased.
1. "safe abortion" in the title. Abortion is never safe for the baby and also has serious health risks for the mother.
2. "International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said he hoped the move would persuade other nations to step in and help prevent thousands of deaths." This kind of language is suited to the protection of lives from killer diseases, not abortion which is the deliberate killing of a child.
3. "thousands of deaths" is in no way quantified. Where is the data? Why are these women's lives at risk and why can't they be helped by treatment that does not involve abortion. What medicines could be used to help women other than brutal abortion methods?
4. "The World Health Organisation estimates backstreet abortionists cause 70,000 "agonising" deaths every year." If abortion is so unsafe then why not eliminate illegal abortion practices altogether? I asked a representative of IPPF once if she supported the prosecution of illegal abortionists that maimed and killed women. She simply couldn't answer. If IPPF were concerned about the welfare of children they would be in favour of prosecution illegal abortionists, but they do not.
5. "But to receive US aid, health clinics must pledge neither to provide abortion services nor advise women to have one." And what would be wrong with that?
6. "Since US President George W Bush imposed this so-called "global gag" rule in 2001, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) has had to close dozens of clinics." The "global gag rule" is a proabortion term. In fact there was a Congressional investigation into the use of federal funding being used for forced abortions and sterilisations in China and other countries.
7. "But with Britain's £3m it will set up the Global Safe Abortion Programme to improve access to safe abortion services and "support other partners that have had to cut back on reproductive health services because of the impact of the gag rule"." I do wonder at this point who is writing this report. I mean what is all this in inverted commas? Not exactly objective reporting. I wonder if I sent the BBC some of my writing if they would stick it up on bbc newsonline?!!
I could go on but I won't. BBC Newsonline ends with a long quote from the IPPF director which is about a third of the whole report. No quote from any prolife organisation. Not even a mention of any possible objection to abortion. Poor Steven Sinding from IPPF expresses his lack of knowledge about why anyone might be opposed to funding abortions. If only the BBC had provided space for comment from the prolife side perhaps we could have enlightened him.