typical media misrepresentation of people's words
90- SparklingJewel
- 969 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 46
- Fans: 209
Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”
The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.
But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.
In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”
Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:
“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”
“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.
But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.
Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.
“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.
“Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.
“Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,” Bounds wrote.
In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”
A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.
ABC News did not respond to requests for comment from FOXNews.com.
ABC’s mischaracterization of Palin’s words was not the only one in the media. The Washington Post also did some last-minute clean-up in one of its articles on Palin — a front-page story Friday with the headline “Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska.”
As pointed out by The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, the original version posted online used harsher language than the one that hit Beltway newsstands early Friday morning.
The original passage, written by staff writer Anne E. Kornblut, read:
“Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’
“The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin’s statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday’s anniversary.”
But in the print version, and the version now appearing on the newspaper’s Web site, the article softened its claim a bit by swapping in the last line with this: “But it is widely agreed that militants allied with Al Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion
I watched this interview, there were obvious cuts in what was aired on the TV.
95- livelonger
- 336 posts
- Joined: 3 years ago
- Hubs: 126
- Fans: 810
Yes but the sentiment was the exact same thing. The full quote does not change the meaning of what she was saying. She believes that fighting in Iraq is a task from God.
Her handlers have been quick to school her on how to explain this away, but the fact remains is she believes it is a divine mission.
What other "divine missions" will she imagine she'll get from God while she sleeps at night if she becomes President? Funny how God always seems to agree with the Republican's whims of the day.
97- Mark Knowles
- 8480 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 214
- Fans: 1425
She gave this speech in a church. And made it clear she believes the war in Iraq is a task from god.
SJ - I notice your right wing leanings are getting stronger as you get closer towards the Christ consciousness you claim to be striving for.
Normally I ignore your war-mongering, but this time, well.........
I have no doubt you too have offspring who kill people for the oil company profits as well as Ms. Palin, but watching the video and listening to her describe her son's Jesus fish tattoo as he went off to kill people for his god made me sick to my stomach.
http://dailysource.org/palin- 90
- SparklingJewel
- 969 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 46
- Fans: 209
Mark Knowles wrote:
She gave this speech in a church. And made it clear she believes the war in Iraq is a task from god.
SJ - I notice your right wing leanings are getting stronger as you get closer towards the Christ consciousness you claim to be striving for.
Normally I ignore your war-mongering, but this time, well.........
I have no doubt you too have offspring who kill people for the oil company profits as well as Ms. Palin, but watching the video and listening to her describe her son's Jesus fish tattoo as he went off to kill people for his god made me sick to my stomach.
http://dailysource.org/palinas usual, you ignore the point intended by the post...and its title
- 90
- SparklingJewel
- 969 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 46
- Fans: 209
livelonger wrote:
Yes but the sentiment was the exact same thing. The full quote does not change the meaning of what she was saying. She believes that fighting in Iraq is a task from God.
Her handlers have been quick to school her on how to explain this away, but the fact remains is she believes it is a divine mission.
What other "divine missions" will she imagine she'll get from God while she sleeps at night if she becomes President? Funny how God always seems to agree with the Republican's whims of the day.as usual, you ignore the point of the post as stated in the title
- 97
- Mark Knowles
- 8480 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 214
- Fans: 1425
SparklingJewel wrote:
as usual, you ignore the point intended by the post...and its titleAs usual you have managed to mis-communicate your point. Here was I thinking you were trying to show how the media is mis-representing Sarah Palin and she does not really believe or say the things the media says she does.
Watch the video of the war speech she made in a church and you will see that you are the one doing the mis-representing. - 95
- livelonger
- 336 posts
- Joined: 3 years ago
- Hubs: 126
- Fans: 810
SparklingJewel wrote:
livelonger wrote:
Yes but the sentiment was the exact same thing. The full quote does not change the meaning of what she was saying. She believes that fighting in Iraq is a task from God.
Her handlers have been quick to school her on how to explain this away, but the fact remains is she believes it is a divine mission.
What other "divine missions" will she imagine she'll get from God while she sleeps at night if she becomes President? Funny how God always seems to agree with the Republican's whims of the day.as usual, you ignore the point of the post as stated in the title
"As usual"?
- 90
- SparklingJewel
- 969 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 46
- Fans: 209
Livelonger and Mark,
As usual, your responses put me into a category you have already defined on your own terms...as we all do But you are wrong on how you define me.
I am trying to learn to communicate from my own perspective...as yet not completely defined to myself. Responses from others help me to define what I mean.
My "as usual" in response to both of you, is about what I see as a typical left liberal response; one that I perceive does not comprehend a Christian response from a Christian point of view, I assume because you each have "issues" with Christianity defined in your own heads by your own individual experiences in life, and so you haven't been able to see Christians more objectively/clearly.
I have honestly "lived" both a Christian and a liberal life, at separate times, in this life, and now I am somewhere in between, trying to sort it out. My gut tells me that somewhere in the middle (as in Gautama's Middle Way) is the answer to all the burning questions and problems of our time. So, I look for a common ground.
Because I believe that the Christ aspect of a soul (the heart) is essentially the same as the Buddhic aspect of a soul (the mind), and that together working in a balanced way a soul is in the balanced consciousness to bring peace and harmony to life, then all people can learn to work together.
So, as this is in my mind/heart...I find that it is much harder to communicate it, put it into words and actions.
Now, I know that Christians have to learn to integrate some liberal concepts into their being and that liberals need to do the same. All people I guess, need to learn to do the same with whatever "sides" they are on. It's what are those concepts that each individual needs to sort out for themselves so that they can learn to find common ground with those they used to oppose.
We don't have to agree point to point, on anything, but we do need to learn to/try to be objective, respectful of each other in our differences, and get along to enable us to find the common ground.
From my perspective, for instance, a good issue is abortion. Liberals need to recognized/accept that Christians have a particularized "spiritual" perception about how abortion affects the soul, not only the soul of the unborn, but also of the mother and others involved in the pregnancy.
And Christians need to recognized/accept that liberals don't have that same spiritual perception, but focus instead on the freedom to do as they choose with their own body.
Christians and those that don't like the idea of abortion think about the right of the unborn soul to have a body, first, and those that like the idea of abortion think about the women's right to do as she chooses with her own body, first.
the only logical middle way is to leave abortion legal and make it safer than it is now, (i.e. like stop performing abortions in unclean, unmonitered, uninspected, unregulated environments and trying to force doctors to perform abortions that don't want to, and having laws that protect the underage girls from being manipulated in their innocence and secreted across borders to have abortions, and stop the rejection of parent/family involvement when possible to help her make her decision...AND to do as the Christians have done and see that all people get information concerning both "sides" (the spiritual and the liberal) so that a woman (or underage girl) can make a truly informed decision for herself. That also includes seeing that the woman is not hindered, forced, coerced or violently harmed to make her get an abortion.
This is a spiritual issue and there are others that liberals don't respect Christians as having.
Geez some liberals even try to stop spiritual people from having their own spiritual conscience, and Christians try to say that liberals don't even have a spiritual conscience, (because they don't appear to consider the soul's right to life in an abortion circumstance).
On and on it goes...but hearts and minds are changing, and it is gradual shift to find respect for each others' place on the spectrum of being
IT is hard to decide whether abortion is a political, religious, or a family issue...it is all three!
For the record here, too...I believe Iraq is a mission from God for everyone involved...but then again everything in life concerning everyone is a mission from God
- 90
- SparklingJewel
- 969 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 46
- Fans: 209
Every media misinterpretation of a person's "stand" begins to paint a picture of that person's stand...and is always never completely true to that person. In that we all affect or can affect each other in our communication...it isn't "fair" or ethical for media to "cut and paint" as they do.
That is why getting as many perspectives (liberal, conservative, independent, feminist, etc) as possible is best and than finding within onesself what we feel and think about that person.
The media does it about everyone and we are all learning about being a victim or not, deciding about what and who a person is, and about finding our own self-discernment on people and issues, and not just going along with the "herd" consciousness, believing any particular media story, or the conservatives, liberals, feminists, etc. I hope that is happening anyway. In this time of big change in our souls, hence in our states and countries, it is a challenge to not get stuck in a particular mindset instead of moving to something new and different. - 97
- Mark Knowles
- 8480 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 214
- Fans: 1425
OK, I will bite. To be perfectly honest, I am getting sick of listening to you disguise your war-mongering ramblings as some sort of higher consciousness-quest.
SparklingJewel wrote:
Livelonger and Mark,
As usual, your responses put me into a category you have already defined on your own terms...as we all do But you are wrong on how you define me.
I tend to define people by their actions and words. Excuse me if your "God Bless our troops," words appear to me as nationalistic. And how can I be wrong in my definition of you? It is, after all, my definition, and therefore never wrong as far as I am concerned. Difficult concept to grasp, I know, but please try.
SparklingJewel wrote:
I am trying to learn to communicate from my own perspective...as yet not completely defined to myself. Responses from others help me to define what I mean.Here is where you are going wrong. Attempting to communicate from your own perspective is always a mistake. Perhaps you should try communicating from the others perspective. This is what I try to do. I try and communicate clearly from your perspective. Less misunderstandings this way. "Say what you mean," is one of my credos. If I have made myself unclear, please tell me, and I will attempt to rectify the situation.
I speak 5 languages fluently. Nonetheless, I have friends who speak English, German, Dutch, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, and "American," and mis-communications are an every day part of my life. But we all strive to make ourselves clear.
SparklingJewel wrote:
My "as usual" in response to both of you, is about what I see as a typical left liberal response; one that I perceive does not comprehend a Christian response from a Christian point of view, I assume because you each have "issues" with Christianity defined in your own heads by your own individual experiences in life, and so you haven't been able to see Christians more objectively/clearly."Typical left liberal" response.
And just a few sentences ago, you are accusing me of defining you on my own terms. If you do not see the hypocrisy here, you have denial down to an art form. Oh, wait.....
A Christian response, from a christian point of view. Hmmmmm. We are clearly in disagreement over what constitutes christian. Personally - I have yet to meet one. And if you mean objectively/clearly to mean blinkered, OK, I could go with that. Killing people for money. Very christian.
When I read the bible, I see clearly that it says, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."
But many christians seem to ignore this and take it to mean," Except when you are killing for your country, OR GOD." In which case, it is fine.
SparklingJewel wrote:
I have honestly "lived" both a Christian and a liberal life, at separate times, in this life, and now I am somewhere in between, trying to sort it out. My gut tells me that somewhere in the middle (as in Gautama's Middle Way) is the answer to all the burning questions and problems of our time. So, I look for a common ground.Well, I wish you well in the sorting it out, but there ain't no middle. You either believe killing people for money is wrong, or you don't. I do not see a middle ground, unless you are talking about the current "christian," middle ground when killing people for god/oil companies is OK, but killing baby fetuses is wrong.
Quote all the "gurus," you like. At the end of the day, we must make up our own minds what is right or wrong.
SparklingJewel wrote:
Because I believe that the Christ aspect of a soul (the heart) is essentially the same as the Buddhic aspect of a soul (the mind), and that together working in a balanced way a soul is in the balanced consciousness to bring peace and harmony to life, then all people can learn to work together.
So, as this is in my mind/heart...I find that it is much harder to communicate it, put it into words and actions.Meaningless garbage when you start a thread such as you just started. Especially when you look at the reason you started it. SP thinks the war in Iraq is a task from god. Many people take issue with this, myself included. It implies a higher power that has decided what is right or wrong, and (SPs personal benefits aside) this is wrong.
According the the name of this thread, you started this to show "typical media misrepresentation of people's words."
When I watched the video that prompted these question, there can be no doubt that SP said what she meant, and I do not see any mis-representation here. You do. Why?
It just so happens that SP has a vested interest in Iraq. And a vested interest in persuading herself that her son is doing god's work - BY KILLING PEOPLE. With a Jesus fish tattoo on his calf.
Jesus would be turning in his grave (If he had one) to hear this nationalistic rubbish. And you are claiming to be reaching for the christ-consciousness?
Read your bible again.
SparklingJewel wrote:
Now, I know that Christians have to learn to integrate some liberal concepts into their being and that liberals need to do the same. All people I guess, need to learn to do the same with whatever "sides" they are on. It's what are those concepts that each individual needs to sort out for themselves so that they can learn to find common ground with those they used to oppose.Once again, you have managed to confuse me. I didn't think you were a christian, I thought you were a right-wing war-monger with children who kill people for money who was striving for the christ-consciousness, middle-ground, karmic-balance, guru-stated, chakra-balanced, open-to-everything whatever. Hmm. Starting to make sense now. Kill people for money. It is god's will.
If you put me in the box, "liberal," - why on earth would I want to listen to this war mongering? I do not think it solves anything. All it does is make one small group more financially powerful.SparklingJewel wrote:
We don't have to agree point to point, on anything, but we do need to learn to/try to be objective, respectful of each other in our differences, and get along to enable us to find the common ground.
No. I cannot be objective. I cannot respect your feelings that war is a "mission from god," and good. There is no/can not be any common ground. I think it is wrong to kill people for money. You think it is right. Zero middle ground.
SparklingJewel wrote:
From my perspective, for instance, a good issue is abortion. Liberals need to recognized/accept that Christians have a particularized "spiritual" perception about how abortion affects the soul, not only the soul of the unborn, but also of the mother and others involved in the pregnancy.
Once again, no. "Christians" cannot say with one breath that the war in Iraq is "god's war," and a good thing, and in another breath say that abortion is a "spiritual" perception and wrong."
As usual, you have managed to mis-communicate your opinions on this. Do you think a woman has the right to choose to abort, or do you think you have the right to deny her that choice?
I wonder which answer you will come up with
SparklingJewel wrote:
Christians and those that don't like the idea of abortion think about the right of the unborn soul to have a body, first, and those that like the idea of abortion think about the women's right to do as she chooses with her own body, first.
I disagree. Christians (the ones who think killing indiscriminately is right, and the war in Iraq is god's war) are more interested in inflicting their opinion on others. If I met an anti-abortionist, and he said he would personally take care of any non-aborted fetuses, I could change my perception. How many stopped abortions has GB taken in?
I agree - I think about the woman's right to do with her own body as she chooses.SparklingJewel wrote:
the only logical middle way is to leave abortion legal and make it safer than it is now, (i.e. like stop performing abortions in unclean, unmonitered, uninspected, unregulated environments and trying to force doctors to perform abortions that don't want to, and having laws that protect the underage girls from being manipulated in their innocence and secreted across borders to have abortions, and stop the rejection of parent/family involvement when possible to help her make her decision...AND to do as the Christians have done and see that all people get information concerning both "sides" (the spiritual and the liberal) so that a woman (or underage girl) can make a truly informed decision for herself. That also includes seeing that the woman is not hindered, forced, coerced or violently harmed to make her get an abortion.
This is a spiritual issue and there are others that liberals don't respect Christians as having.
As far as I am aware, (notwithstanding the federal government's withdrawal of monies to planned parenthood) abortion is legal in the US.
And there you go again. Pitting "spiritual" (christian) vs "liberal." Why?
SparklingJewel wrote:
This is a spiritual issue and there are others that liberals don't respect Christians as having
And once again, you are showing your colors(my perception - your words)
I do not believe anyone who thinks it is OK to invade another country and use nuclear weapons can consider themselves christian. I must have read a very different bible to you.
SparklingJewel wrote:
t Christians as having.
Geez some liberals even try to stop spiritual people from having their own spiritual conscience, and Christians try to say that liberals don't even have a spiritual conscience, (because they don't appear to consider the soul's right to life in an abortion circumstance).
On and on it goes...but hearts and minds are changing, and it is gradual shift to find respect for each others' place on the spectrum of being
You are now calling yourself "spiritual?"
My spirituality does not allow me to have an opinion on what some one should be allowed to do with her body. But - yours does?
How very Fox news/christian of you.
I cannot and will not have any respect for some one who claims to have an opinion on what a woman should be allowed to choose, and in the same sentence says ware is right.
SparklingJewel wrote:
IT is hard to decide whether abortion is a political, religious, or a family issue...it is all three!
No. It is none of the above. It is a personal decision by the woman concerned.
Now, if you are saying that you personally will take an interest in, and help the development of that fetus - for the life of that person, I would change my stance. But - I suspect you are more interested in getting cheap gas for your new car. In which case - you are not entitled to an opinion.
SparklingJewel wrote:
For the record here, too...I believe Iraq is a mission from God for everyone involved...but then again everything in life concerning everyone is a mission from God
Of course you do. And I am certain you are not allowing the fact that your children are paid to kill people to influence that decision.
Welcome christian right-winger (my perception based solely on my own issues - nothing to do with anything you have said.)
And I will throw in a few more smiles so it doesn't look nasty.
84- knolyourself
- 1234 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 18
- Fans: 74
SJ - "somewhere in the middle (as in Gautama's Middle Way) is the answer to all the burning questions and problems of our time. So, I look for a common ground."
The common ground is under your feet - this little ole earth. You could start there. We have that in common.
Or is it Christ points to heaven. Don't think will ever have
that in common. Ah - or God is supposed to be the commonality. I sit in the dirt, but I have never seen God, unless they are one and the same.
95- sandra rinck
- 3537 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 117
- Fans: 448
SJ, I didn't think you were pro-war. I thought you were pro God in however you chose to believe, I thought you were pro- diversity and had a vested interest in the well-being of people as a whole.
War is never Gods mission. It's mans. Sorry if you find this offensive cause I think you are sweet. But these three words do not belong in the same group. God, War, Good.
Certainly you must be thinking that because it is written then it has to be done and it is Gods will that it be done, but I have to strongly disagree. If any of it is true, then you should be heeding the warning signs and considering youself lucky to even have the chance to change it before it gets that way.
The promise of God should not be more important than the life we have here right now. A lot of it sucks really bad, I complain a lot too, but sh*t, I would never wanna hurt no one and I would think that a good heart would know that it is a trick. It just aint right. When has war ever been right?
And women should have the right to chose if abortion is right for them. I am pro-choice, but I could never have one myself, at least that is how I feel right now, it could change if the circumstances changed.
Well, I still love you anyways. I just thought you were smarter than that.
90- Misha
- 6719 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 1564
Umm, just a question to Mark and Sandy. Probably more to Sandy, cause I think Mark did read it, and after all he claims to be an atheist.
Did you read Bhagavad Gita?- 95
- sandra rinck
- 3537 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 117
- Fans: 448
Misha wrote:
Umm, just a question to Mark and Sandy. Probably more to Sandy, cause I think Mark did read it, and after all he claims to be an atheist.
Did you read Bhagavad Gita?I did, why?
- 90
- Misha
- 6719 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 16
- Fans: 1564
Do you remember how Krishna explains to Arjuna that it is his God mandated duty to kill his relatives and friends in the battle?
82- coolbreeze
- 105 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 95
- Fans: 212
Marks rants are very entertaining, Interesting to find many atheists that are more spiritual than Christens. Mark makes alot of sense to me. Most Christens do not. Are you making a hub out of
this presentation Mark ;-)- 97
- Mark Knowles
- 8480 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 214
- Fans: 1425
Misha - no, I have not read that one
Coolbreeze. I have been working on my ranting technique. I don't be ticklin' or nothin' And I have to share this one:
98- pgrundy
- 1086 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 177
- Fans: 1307
Mark, you rock!
I realized last night as my better half and I were watching the news that people much younger than us (in our late 50s) don't have a personal memory of what life as like before Roe v. Wade. I remember that time vividly. I've considered writing about it in a hub but balked at the thought of all the fanatic crap I'd certainly have to take in comments. Still, unless a person was around to see how NOT having Roe v Wade in place really was for women and children, it strikes me that that person is pretty much talking out their butt in regard to repealing it. What really bothers me about McCain is that he KNOWS what it was like and wants it repealed anyway. I think he really is a hateful little bastard, and I pray he and his Alaskan Barbie doll don't get elected.
Repealing Roe v Wade won't stop abortion. It will just insure that the girls and women who seek abortions will die with their unborn fetuses. On a related note, abstinence-only sex ed insures a steady stream of clients for any butcher who thinks he or she can abort a fetus. We can also go back to the good old days of coat hangers and teen-aged girls dying in pools of their own blood alone. Ah, religion... I'm sure this is exactly what Jesus had in mind. Dead teenagers.
Just a thought. Just a short trip down memory lane offered up by an old lady who couldn't possibly know anything because of her leftist liberal politics.- 97
- Mark Knowles
- 8480 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 214
- Fans: 1425
pgrundy wrote:
Mark, you rock!
Aaaaw shucks.
I must admit I have no comprehension for people who feel that abortion should be made illegal. Especially when they go on to say that they are a christian. I did not live in the pre Roe vs Wade America, but I do know that abortions will be done regardless of the law, and am well aware of the horrors of the back-street abortionist.
Or a coat hanger, a warm bath and a bottle of cheap gin. * shudders *
Write the hub and I will come and argue with the "pro-lifers" for you pgrundy wrote:
I realized last night as my better half and I were watching the news that people much younger than us (in our late 50s) don't have a personal memory of what life as like before Roe v. Wade. I remember that time vividly. I've considered writing about it in a hub but balked at the thought of all the fanatic crap I'd certainly have to take in comments. Still, unless a person was around to see how NOT having Roe v Wade in place really was for women and children, it strikes me that that person is pretty much talking out their butt in regard to repealing it.
I was born in 1982, well after Roe Vs. Wade, but speaking from the perspective of the younger generation, I hope you will write it. My aunt is a lawyer for Planned Parenthood,and I've heard many of her compatriots worry about the fading pro-choice sentiment among young women. People my age tend to take it for granted, you know. Our "memories" of pre-choice America need to be created for us to appreciate the options we have, and every little bit helps.
Being a history nut, I'm considering writing a hub on infanticide, which wasn't even considered a crime until Victorian times, it was such a fact of life in a world that had little birth control and less abortion. Yet this is the world that these "pro-lifers" wish to return to...
