Life: New York Times prints photos of abortion victims

An important event happened over the weekend in the pro-life movement:

On Saturday, the New York Times included a front-page, above-the-fold news story that presents a strangely fair portrayal of pro-life advocates who engage in street activism.

Meanwhile, the Times' Photography, Video, and Visual Journalism online section features a photo montage showing the pictures of babies who died in abortions {warning, leads to graphic material}. {Accompanying video report here - also includes graphic images.}

Monica Migliorino Miller, a Michigan pro-life advocate and professor at Madonna University, has taken so many pictures of babies killed in abortions she is regarded as an expert of sorts.

She told LifeNews.com over the weekend that the Times show and online pictorial is "nearly unprecedented in 37 years of legalized abortion."

"Perhaps for the first time in the history of the pro-life movement a nationally recognized paper -- or any newspaper for that matter -- has deliberately printed photos of actual abortion victims," Miller said.

Miller talked about the genesis of the news report and online photo spread [here].

Miller encourages pro-life advocates to comment on the Times story and to thank the newspaper for running the photos online.

Monica Miller is extremely well known in the Michigan right-to-life movement.

She is also of the 88 people currently being sued by Notre Dame University for peaceful demonstrations on their campus leading up to the appearance of President Obama earlier this year.

I know many people disagree with the pro-life use of images which show the remains of aborted unborn children. Nonetheless, most of us have seen them, at this point. And I don't think we should look past the fact that, having seen them, we can choose not to use them, but many people who are "pro-choice", have never seen them.

I think anyone who votes to protect or promote abortion, especially late-term abortion, should have the opportunity of seeing what they are voting for.

A dose of NYT snarkiness in reaction to the pope's letter

Rachel Donadio of the New York Times gets snarky {my comments in brackets}:

Pope Admits Online News Can Provide Infallible Aid {Haha. Get it? INFALLIBLE aid. I'm so clever.}

The letter released Thursday in which Pope Benedict XVI admitted that the Vatican had made “mistakes” in handling the case of a Holocaust-denying bishop was unprecedented in its directness, its humanity and its acknowledgment of papal fallibility. {not to be confused, of course, with the Pope's charism of infallibility when speaking authoritatively on matters pertaining to faith or morals. Just so we're clear.}

But it also contained two sentences unique in the annals of church history. {unique, sure. important - well, maybe.}

“I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on,” Benedict wrote. “I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news.” {They could start with subscribing to AmP. Oh wait, they probably already do! ;-) }

In other words: “Note to the Roman Curia: try Google.” {Wow, Rachel, you're about the seven hundredth person to make that suggestion. What incisive advice!}

The Vatican, a 2,000-year-old monarchy built on the ruins of the Roman Empire and run by octogenarians, has officially recognized the demands of the 24-hour news cycle, not a 24-century one. {Oh brother - where did this line come from? I mean, ya know what? The Church will be here in another 2,000 years - and the New York Times won't be. You can quote me on that.}

In his disarmingly human letter, Benedict acknowledged the “avalanche of protests” elicited after he revoked the excommunication of four schismatic bishops in January ... {it's "disarmingly human" only to someone who doesn't know the Pope. C'mon - you're writing for the New York Times for pete's sake - have you been any paying attention at all to who this man is?!}

... In the ensuing weeks, the pope said he had not been aware of Bishop Williamson’s views at the time he revoked the excommunication, and he repeatedly condemned anti-Semitism.

But the criticism did not stop, as Catholics and Jews alike questioned the pope’s moral authority. {His moral authority?! How was it a question about his moral authority?! That's a new one to me. I think some people specifically asked if the Pope endorsed Williamson's kooky views on the Holocaust. That's it.}

... Speaking to reporters at the Vatican on Thursday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict had taken the criticism to heart. “He demonstrates that he was touched and that he listened to what was said, even on the Internet,” Father Lombardi said. {It's where the game is being played now.}

The rest of the article is rather ho-hum.