The anti-abortion extremists at the Media Research Center initially greeted the Arizona Supreme Court ruling uphold an archaic 1964 law banning nearly all abortions in the state with reserved glee. Chief extremist Tierin-Rose Mandelburg wrote an April 10 article with the bland headline “AZ Upholds Near Total Abortion Ban: Media Reacts” — though she didn’t quote anyone in the media, just activists on both sides (sneering that Elizabeth Warren was a “Pocohontas wannabe” while attaching no derogatory comments to anti-abortion activists). Actual criticism of the media over the ruling came in a post later that day by Jorge Bonilla:
For lack of a better term, the evening network newscasts pounced- or seized, if you will, upon the Arizona Supreme Court ruling tossing out the state’s 15-week limit on abortion and putting in place the 1864 territorial statute which bans abortion in all instances except to protect the life of the mother. As you can imagine, the focus of all this collective seizing and pouncing was on the potential electoral effects of this ruling.
Most exemplary and most over-the-top, as is usually the case, was ABC’s coverage. After a lengthy lead-in politically framing the story, anchor David Muir jumps back on in order to make sure that correspondent Rachel Scott lets viewers know “what’s at stake”:
[…]It is worth noting that ABC was the sole network Not to feature a pro-life voice. CBS and NBC featured minuscule soundbites from Alliance Defending Freedom, who won their appeal before the state Supreme Court. Perhaps that would’ve cut into the extraneous political analysis but, really, Muir could’ve cut a second and a half worth of “tonights” to make room for a single pro-life sentence.
The coverage echoed common themes across the board: the law dates back to the Civil War, the law was passed before women had the right to vote and, of course, the law will factor into the 2024 election with Arizona being a key battleground state. CBS’s signoff was emphatic about the politics, with Norah O’Donnell expressing shock that some Republicans might be against the 1864 law coming into effect. Did she never cover a pro-abortion Republican while in D.C.?
Bonilla seems upset that the other side of the story, one that differs from what anti-abortion extremists want you to hear, was told.
Curtis Houck ranted that anyone who an anti-abortion extremist like him was “giddy” about “killing babies”:
On Wednesday, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC all led off their flagship morning news shows with coverage of the Arizona state Supreme Court ruling reinstalling an abortion law dating back to 1864 that protects unborn babies unless the life of the mother is threatened.
Given the liberal media’s ebullience toward killing babies, they were giddy about this “bombshell ruling” and argued this “game changer” ensure abortion — not the economy, inflation, national security, or anything else — will “define” and “be at the center of this presidential election” to help elect Democrats.
They weren’t really interested in the facts, including the reality that while this was framed as something originally enacted during the Civil War before Arizona became a state, our friend Erick Erickson noted this was around for over a century until Roe v. Wade in 1972.
Houck, of course, was not interested in the reality that support for abortion rights doesn’t make one a vicious murderer. Like Bonilla, he’s angry that another side of the story that he wants censored is being told. Bonilla, meanwhile, returned to complain some more about the other side being told — namely, that the ruling will make abortion a prominent issue in the 2024 presidential election — in an April 11 post:
The network evening newscasts continue to feast on coverage of the potential political fallout over an Arizona Supreme Court ruling ratifying an 1864 territorial statute that bans abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother. Understandably so, as newscast time spent hyping abortions in Arizona is less time available to cover the types of things adverse to Democrats generally, and to the Biden presidency, specifically.
[…]Common thematics across networks revolved around pure politics, such as Vice President Kamala Harris’ trip to Arizona to speak on the issue, and general observation of the Biden campaign’s targeted advertising in the Grand Canyon State.
It remains unclear whether an abortion referendum makes it to the Arizona ballot in November, but one thing is for certain: the networks will continue to pound abortion politics, given that this spares them from having to cover any more of the Biden Malaise than is minimally necessary.
Of course Bonilla accuses others of playing politics by playing politics himself. Kinda undercuts the credibility of his “media research.”
The extremist narrative ran into a little snag when Donald Trump admitted that the ruling went too far. That resulted in an April 13 post by Alex Christy trying to deflect from claims of hypocrisy by Trump’s supporters:
Donald Trump may have disappointed pro-life activists with his embrace of a federalist stance on abortion, but with President Joe Biden being a far-left abortion zealot, they will still vote for him. For New York Times columnist David Brooks on Friday’s PBS NewsHour, however, this is just another instance of “the power of Trump” and “above some of the core convictions.”
Host Geoff Bennett asked Brooks for his thoughts on the fallout of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that an 1864 pro-life law can be enforced, “Because even Donald Trump is implicitly acknowledging that this is a problem, because he said that the Arizona State Supreme Court went too far and that the law, in his words, needs to be straightened out.”
[…]It is unfair to compare a post-Roe GOP candidate’s stance on abortion to a Roe-era GOP candidate’s. Even still, Brooks’s claim is unfair. Roe did not allow for a federalist solution, so by allowing states to impose bans or 15-week restrictions, Trump is being more pro-life than Roe even if he disappointed pro-life activists by not embracing a national policy.
[…]As for those pro-life activists, Brooks claimed that “the thing that astonishes me, the pro-life groups, they should be really, I guess it’s appropriate to say raising holy hell. But they’re sort of going along with it. And it shows that — the power of Trump over the party. Let’s protect Donald Trump, even above some of the core convictions.”
Again, Brooks is being unfair. Many people believe that politics and elections are the art of the possible, and with Trump as president, it will be possible to get some conservative judges, maybe some pro-life regulations, and that state pro-life laws will survive. If Biden is re-elected, it is possible, if not likely, that the opposite will happen.
Because support for Trump must always be justified, no matter how hypocritical.