SST’s illusion of objectivity

If there’s a newspaper article discussing politician plans to limit access to abortion – by introducing a requirement that parents consent – then shouldn’t that article tell us what views the named politicians might hold on the issue?

Otherwise we have the illusion of neutrality.

So well done SST, for giving us Judith Collins history on this issue. She tried to introduce a similar bill in 2004 which was not supported by the College of General Practitioners or the Medical Council or enough MPs to pass.

Not such a good mark on the second MP they quote however:

Finance Minister Bill English supported the amendment. “If a school doctor wants to give a pupil a Panadol, they have to tell parents … It is time to swing the pendulum back in favour of parents,” he said then. “Where there are significant events affecting children, and real risks to their welfare, parents should be involved.

“The idea that the law allows your 12 to 14-year-old daughter to have an abortion on her own and go back to school is repugnant.”

When it comes to abortion, every media article that quotes Bill English should inform readers that his wife, Dr Mary English, actively campaigns against abortion.

We should also always be informed that Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child considers Bill “strongly anti-abortion.”

As Minister of Health in the mid 1990s, he even supported SPUC in producing a booklet, with taxpayer money, on “options around abortion” that clinics and Family Planning clinics refused to use.

Bill English’s views on abortion have been quietly erased from the general public’s viewing for a few years now, presumably to make him more palatable to the many people in Aotearoa who consider access to control over conception and child-bearing a fundamental human right.

The media should not be helping National with this public relations campaign. That’s not their job.