REAL, CONFIDENTIAL, FREE, NON-JUDGMENTAL HELP TO AVOID ABORTION, FROM MANY PLACES:
3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Remember the pro-abortion bias proven in my local paper two weeks ago? That exchange with the relatively new, "personally opposed to abortion" editor-in-chief went a little further. Not further "better", sadly, for them and for their readers.

My last words to him in that posted exchange to date were these:
[S]ince, according to a national licensed pharmacists organization, Morning After Pills are typically "10-20 times the progesterone" and "5 times" the estrogen as in the standard daily Pill, it's possible that this "very high dose" of the same hormones can increase these health risks even more.

That has never been studied. If you don't print this letter, it means The Connecticut Post thinks it shouldn't be studied.
It's been over two weeks, and they apparently think it shouldn't be studied.

After I pointed out to the editor, James Smith, that when used in the title of an organization, as it was in the Catholic Bishops representative's title, no style guide in the world would have "pro-life" changed to "anti-abortion," this was his reply:
Subject: RE: Seven World-Renowned, Peer-Reviewed, Cancer Journals All Can't Be Wrong (incl. Journal of the Natl Cancer Inst, JNCI)
From: jsmith@ctpost.com, swinters@ctpost.com, mdaly@ctpost.com
CC: thollis@ctpost.com, ttompkins@ctpost.com, llevinson@ctpost.com

Ms. Banno,
When words are in a title of an organization, we should use that title correctly. I personally am opposed to abortion, but I would not foist my personal views on women (or men) who believe otherwise, who believe women should have control of their own bodies, and I would not let my personal views affect news judgments in coverage of any issue.
Yours,
Jim Smith
Note the CCs. He really was addressing his first sentence to his underlings who apparently made the style switch erroneously, exposing their own bias. I have reason to believe the responsible party could be Todd Hollis, who angrily threatened me some years ago (when the former chief editor, Todd's boss, was directing my letters to be printed) with "reporting [me] for unsolicited emails" unless I removed him from my "TO" list for the newspaper. And he's an assistant editor! Unsolicited, indeed.

I wrote Jim Smith back:
Jim,
Is that your paper's apology for not using the title correctly, then? Or not? The words are clearly in the title of that department.

Your newspaper certainly did "foist" someone's personal views on its readership by switching the terminology. Ultimately that is your responsibility, though, am I correct in understanding?

You haven't answered my questions: Are you going to print my letter? Or are you going to prove me right, that you and this paper really don't care if women increase their breast cancer risk from oral contraceptives?

If you don't publicize this news, then you and this paper are indeed letting something "affect news judgments in coverage of [this] issue."

Skip our personal argument about your paper's obvious mistake in this article, if you must. This isn't about me or you or our views. This is about the valid, medical published results of vetted, peer-reviewed, N.C.I., W.H.O. and other studies finding that harm is being done to women by use of oral contraceptives.

[As a side note regarding your paper's assertion that the news media (including this paper) aren't liberally-biased in their reporting, it appears PoliSci professors from the liberal UCLA and the University of Chicago, did actual research last year and found evidence that it is so: "First, we find a systematic tendency for the U.S. media outlets to slant the news to the left." http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm]
Smith's next missive struck me as obfuscating and naive, actually, especially about his own copy editor(s)' pro-abortion bias.
Ms. Banno,
I'm losing track of all your various missives. Our correspondence reminds me of Paul Newman's movie "Cool Hand Luke," wherein they have a failure to communicate.

If you are asking me whetehr [sic] we are going to print your letter that begins like this: "Your bias and your ignorance are showing, Connecticut Post. You perhaps can be forgiven the former, but the latter contributes to costing more women their lives from increased breast cancer risks and earlier deaths. I fear you won't print this letter as you lack the intestinal fortitude. It could be why, since Mr. Smith became Editor, this paper refused to print my eight letters on abortion issues. Even Smith's predecessor, who disagreed with me heartily, didn't suppress my voice or my reporting of facts such as these as Smith has done." my answer is no. I rarely make decisions on letters, but on this one I think you are making far too much of a copy editor trying to adhere to AP style. Also, on scientific and medical issues, I prefer to publish articles written by objective journalists, rather than letters coming from an acknowledged point of view.

Also your reference to the study on bias in the media, I'm sure you are aware, that study has its detractors.

We certainly welcome your letters for consideration and I would point out that we do not hesitate to print letters coming from your point of view, which we do often.
Yours,
Jim Smith
Losing track of all my missives? Failure to communicate? I guess you can call it that when he is the one who failed to communicate by avoiding the question, "Are you going to print my letter?" (not to mention the rest). And I sent only one "letter to the editor!" I understand he's busy, but really, now.
Jim, I sent but one original letter and two replies. I have no failure to communicate or understand you. You didn't answer my question until this note today, nor did you acknowledge that the paper did anything wrong.

May I address Steve Winters [editorial page editor, who I've CCd on everything ever sent to the paper] also a moment. Perhaps Steve, you'll recall my two letters on the fatal dangers of RU-486, the "Abortion Pill" (written September 25 and December 19, 2003), now that the government has just announced that two more women have died from using that pill. That brings the North American total of women killed since 9/2001 by RU-486 to either 8 or 10, depending on whether these are new deaths or just final acceptances of earlier-reported deaths.

Neither of those two letters were printed by The Connecticut Post either.

Jim, my eight (8) letters on "respect life" related issues since you came on board were full of objective, scientific- or official-government-sourced-only data, about the Patch killing women, about the multimillions of couples waiting to adopt, etc., and not one was anything but respectful and matter-of-fact. Not one was printed.

As I said in the last note, omit the part that you quoted above and simply publicize the government-funded and scientific-community findings harm that birth control has been found to inflict on women. You might help save the life of one or more women. Have you even looked at the URLs of the objective sources or had one of your reporters review them?

It matters not to me how you publicize it. Give it to a reporter to look up those published papers. I don't need or want to see my name in lights. Just get it out there.

If you don't judge the "objective journalists" in the JNCI, Cancer Journal and The Lancet objective enough, then how can you indeed believe your publication cares enough about getting the word out to women? The Post didn't do so about RU-486 or the Patch either, until long after I'd written my letters of warning.

It is interesting: after the initial head-butting Frank Keegan and I did, he and The Conn. Post printed numerous letters of mine with exactly the kind of factual, objective, scientific-journal-quoting that the second part of my recent letter held.

And then The Post stopped printing my letters on these issues, abruptly, at the exact same time Keegan was fired.

As for bias in the media, can you imagine the outrage if the general media had published its reported news stories on the Women's "March for Choice" (its original name) back on April 25, 2004, a full three to nine hours before the speakers even took the podium, never mind began marching? That is exactly what happened to the March For Life this year.

And why do you suppose there is an aerial photo taken of that March for Choice's gathering on the Washington Mall from the top of the Washington Monument showing the size of the crowd (gracing the cover of Planned Parenthood's 2003-2004 Annual Report ), while no such photos are ever allowed from such a vantage point or from airborne coverage for a March For Life? PP paid someone for that.

To be completely fair, though, it might not have been a news reporter who convinced the National Parks Department to break the law and sneak or allow that photo to be taken. But media is media. The photo was taken by a professional photographer.

Finally, when The Post brings on two new stridently pro-choice columnists (Molly Ivins, Willam A. Collins) to add to the pro-abortion and already discredited Ellen Goodman (plus Cynthia Tucker), has only two conservative columnists (Kathleen Parker, Chris Powell), and without exception disallows letters filled with objectively-sourced, proven, scientific data, The Post leaves us with no other choice but to think The Post is biased toward abortion rights, Jim.

You've walked into quite the situation there, Jim. I really do wish you the best of luck. Perhaps someday you'll come to understand I have good reason to be upset about the lack of proper coverage of the truth and the fact that women are not being well informed of those truths. I myself was among the scientifically uninformed. Too many women still are. I tripled my own health risks due to the things I've done.

If you all think I'm nuts or have too much of "acknowledged point of view" because I'm up in arms about not letting that happen to your daughters and our granddaughters, then so be it.

I just won't be silent anymore while women die because they weren't informed by the medical community and the media.

Annie Banno
So it would appear I'm on the paper's blacklist. No matter. I'll still write them. I'll still inform them of the science, the facts, the myth-busting. They won't print it, perhaps. But in time, they'll see. They really do not want these facts out there. I'm not sure why. Perhaps they got too many complaint letters in return from this blue-state haven.

There is some good news. In my "absence" from the editorial page, others seem to be getting published more. Both the local Spanish and the English Rachel's Vineyard retreat leaders recently had great letters published. And just this weekend, a gentleman named Paul L. (I won't print full names to protect privacy) had this gem printed, a response to an earlier pro-choice letter, excerpted here:
Dee M.'s letter was whining, complaining and lacking in substance of fact. She...relies on emotionally laden phrases...and failed to do her research--relying instead on shooting from the lip.

In her attack on the Roman Catholic Church, she apparently was unaware of the Rachel's Vineyard ministries or of the other groups who do take in women and their babies when they make the difficult decision to not go through with an abortion.

Has M. ever stopped to talk with the "anti-abortionists (she) sees waving picket signs, trying to intimidate those who enter [the abortion clinic]?" Had she done so, M. perhaps would have learned that their efforts to preserve life consist of more than "picketing." ...M.'s last point is that women will continue to abort even if "they will just use more desperate and probably unsafe methods." She needs to inform herself of what has happened to women who thought they would have a "safe" abortion at...the [abortion clinic in Fairfield County; Annie's note: where I had my abortion]. While facts are hard to come by, abortionists send their "problems" to the hospital where deaths and medical emergencies go into the hospital's statistics, not the [abortion clinic's] record.
It's kind of funny, actually. When I accuse someone of whining, shooting from the lip and lacking in substance of fact (the newspaper editors), they don't want it known.

Still, I couldn't have said it better myself.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion,...run by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice



-------------------------------------------------
COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom
-------------------------------------------------

PREGNANT? UPSET? SCARED?
4,800 confidential groups helping now.
-------------------------------------------------

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 , www.samaritans.org.uk

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or
1-800-5WE-CARE

...more help below...

AbortionChangesYou.com

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

MORE HELP:
Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Ramah
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
NOPARH
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **


Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
---------------------------------------------
LOOKING FOR SOMETHING?
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by
Google

ARCHIVES:

"Do As We Say, Republicans, Not As We Do" - All 8 Parts

Why NOT Hillary?


  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"
---------------------------------------------------

The sidebar continues...

** ENTIRE REST OF OUR SIDEBAR -
CLICK HERE for 2015 UPDATES
**
(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)

*************************************

*************************************


------------------------------------------------
Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)



--------------------------------

RSS
Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2021 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2021. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."


Since 6/13/2005