Defining "political bias" bias

Bioethics.net blog, by the editors and pseudoeditors of the American Journal of Bioethics, has another hit piece aimed at the current administration, referencing that stellar peer-reviewed medical and scientific journal, Glamour Magazine.

It seems that the author of the Glamour article) (Brian Alexander, who writes sometimes politically biased sci-tech articles for Wired magazine and has written a book called, Rapture, How Biotech became the new Religion)has discovered that “Doctors just don’t trust the government anymore.” Mr. Alexander relies heavily on one doctor, whom he describes as unbiased and “mainstream.” In fact, Ruth Shaber, M.D., just happens to be a member of – and spokeswoman for – Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. To evaluate the possible bias of Dr. Shaber for yourself, look at this page, about halfway down, at “Reactions,” where the doctor is applauding the 2002 California move to force hospitals to offer emergency contraception. PRCH Board of Directors includes infamous abortionists Leroy Carhart and George R. Tiller as well as a former Administration’s Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders.

Note, please, that this protest against the politicization of bioethics in the US is on the same page as examples of blatant political biases of their own. There’s another glowing commendation of Jonathan Moreno and his Center for American Progress bioethics institute and its conference on the conservative attacks on bioethics.

There’s another post on the pro-life protests against the fact that the University of Pennsylvania invited to Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer to speak at their Center for Bioethics 10th Anniversary Symposium. The editors and pseudo-editors still <a href="
http://blog.bioethics.net/2006/04/anti-euthanasia-crowd-descends-on-penn.html”>“just don’t get it” why the Schindlers still don’t get it.

Anyone who reads the Kaiser Network Daily reports(see the example above) – or for that matter has been following Glamour magazine – knows that there is a definite pro-abortion-rights slant to both. The same “Daily Women’s Health Policy Report” that references Dr. Shaber as a spokesperson for PRCH is a perfect example of the way in which Kaiser reproductive health and women’s health reports frequently have protests about limits and even comments on this administration’s policies, in particular. Glamour featured the “November Gang” abortion facilities in their September, 2003 issue, encouraging women to feel good about their abortions and to write love letters to the children they had aborted on pink paper hearts. The article in question is actually a commentary on State laws as well as Federal medical information, formatted with headings such as, “YOU MAY BE DENIED . . . (fill in the blank).” Glamour objects to any legal or regulatory limits on dispensing emergency contraception, parental notification or consent before minor girls may obtain an abortion, and government information on the connection between abortion and breast cancer.

Let’s not forget that other administrations have promoted the idea that not all sex is sex, that teens should practice some of these non-sex acts (such as Jocelyn Elders’ advocacy of teen mutual masturbation), and that they should be taught to use condoms on models of the male genitalia in order to avoid pregnancy. Clinton’s denial that oral sex is sex led to the famous and questionably timed Journal of the American Medical Association article on teen’s attitudes toward oral sex.

For those of you, who (like me) can recall 30 years ago, remember when breast cancer was called “the nun’s disease”?

And does anyone else have an explanation for the increase in Sexually Transmitted Disease that is better than the increase in numbers of sexual partners, the acceptance that oral sex and some other types of sex aren’t “sex,” and decrease of the age of first sexual encounter?

“Bias” is definitely in the eye of the beholder. The same people who define pro-abortion Republicans as “moderate” and who deny the agenda of very active advocates of abortion and call them “mainstream” as well as those who institute bioethics centers which they name “Progressive,” “Feminine” and “Humanistic”) where the viewpoints of people of faith are dismissed as “rightwing” and “conservative” should not call “bias” and “politics” when they are opposed. The nature of discussion will reveal disaggreement as well as common ground and consensus.

After all, “tolerance,” by definition assumes disagreement.

About bnuckols

Conservative Christian Family Doctor, promoting conservative news and views. (Hot Air under the right wing!)


One thought on “Defining "political bias" bias

  1. Great web site you’ve got here.. It’s hard to find good quality writing like yours these
    days. I truly appreciate people like you! Take care!!

    Posted by business | October 24, 2014, 1:03 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

If the post is missing: take the “www.” out of the url

@bnuckols Twitter




%d bloggers like this: