Earlier today Radio New Zealand published a piece of abortion propaganda by activist Susan Strongman.
The reason her name might sound familiar to you is because she is the media staffer we exposed several weeks ago for working hand-in-glove with abortion lobby group ALRANZ to attack local pregnancy care organisations.
Well, today that attack came in the form of a particularly nasty and unbalanced hit-piece on Radio New Zealand.
To the thinking person, attacking pregnancy care services for receiving a meagre $300,000 in taxpayer funding over the last fifteen years, is nothing short of petty pearl clutching paranoia.
That’s right, these pregnancy care services have received an average of only $20,000 per year in taxpayer funding for the last 15 years.
What have they done with that money?
Cared for women, given them genuine options during a very difficult time, and saved many human lives from a premature death at an abortion facility.
I would humbly suggest that if you think that’s a problem worthy of mainstream media gotcha journalism, you might want to take some time out to reevaluate the reliability of your moral compass.
This propaganda piece isn’t just overblown tabloid muckraking though, it’s also absurdly hypocritical in three ways.
Number 1: Radio New Zealand is a taxpayer funded organisation
Apparently, according to this article, you are not allowed to care for women and publicly express views on abortion that don’t align with the ideological doctrines of ALRANZ and Strongman.
The spectre of the taxpayer funded Radio NZ producing a clearly partisan hit-piece attacking pro-life pregnancy care services for receiving minuscule amounts of taxpayer funding and expressing views Radio NZ finds disagreeable is both grossly hypocritical and Kafkaesque in its absurdity.
Number 2: These pregnancy centres are doing exactly what abortion activists accuse pro-lifers of NOT doing enough of
One of the common retorts from abortion activists in the modern abortion debate is to accuse pro-lifers of merely being anti-abortionists who don’t really care about the plight of women or the unplanned children they might have to give brith to.
Yet here we have several pro-life organisations who are pouring blood, sweat and tears into caring for women and their babies, and in return for their humanitarian efforts they are being targeted by an abortion activist.
We are talking here about genuine community care that is being carried out on shoestring budgets or even in a voluntary capacity.
So when I see an abortion activist like Strongman attacking them, it suggests to me that she doesn’t really care about the welfare of women or allowing them genuine options from caring communities that don’t promote abortion.
Instead, it seems that all she is really interested in is protecting the abortion status quo from being challenged – even if that means attacking pro-lifers who are going above and beyond to provide genuine care and real options to pregnant women in need.
This is a classic case of being damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Meanwhile, those doing all the condemning aren’t lifting so much as a finger to provide care to women and girls faced with unplanned pregnancies.
The vileness of the many hypocrisies of this speaks volumes about the lack of character of everyone involved in producing and promoting this hit piece.
Number 3: Abortion is taxpayer funded in New Zealand
That’s right, apparently Strongman is totally fine with the fact that pro-life taxpayers are forced to contribute to the millions of dollars spent on funding abortion each year, but heaven forbid that a paltry few thousand dollars be provided annually to organisations that don’t participate in the practice.
I hate to repeat myself, but this is yet more Kafkaesque level hypocrisy.
The real scandal here is not that these pregnancy care centres received taxpayer funded grants, but that they received such diminutive support compared to the vast amount being handed to the abortion industry each year.
Radio New Zealand has failed miserably in their duty of care to basic journalistic ethics by funding and publishing this churlish and blatantly agenda driven hit-piece.
If they want to play political activism instead of doing journalism, then they should be doing so on their own dime, not ours – so perhaps it’s time we all started asking for their taxpayer funding to be reevaluated.