Pro-lifers Are Not Pro-life

The term "pro-life" was first used by education philosopher A.S. Neill in 1960 and it had a different meaning to how we use it now.  It was a progressive term he used to condemn mistreatment of other human beings such as child abuse, homophobia, corporal punishment, war etc. In 1973, when abortion because legal nationally (due to Roe v. Wade), anti-abortion groups began using the term to mean anti-abortion. Those who disagreed with them and supported abortion rights didn't like the moniker of "pro-death" or "anti-life" so they came up with "pro-choice" acknowledging that it was a deeply personal decision that a woman had to undergo. This is the political framing we use today and it hasn't changed much in 50 years.  

The media portrays the difference between these groups as clear cut and black and white, but it is a lot more gray than it appears. If you don't believe me, check out this video from the Holy Post. I don't agree with it 100% but I am impressed with how aligned I am with what they are saying but I consider myself pro-choice and they are clearly not. Often the media lets radical factions define our culture while the rest of us are left scratching our heads. Middle ground does exist. Most, if not all, pro-choicers believe that abortion is a pretty awful thing and something to be avoided. Only the very careless see it as a birth control option. Most, even many people who call themselves pro-life, agree that birth control should be used to avoid pregnancy. 

I don't like the term pro-life because those who call themselves pro-life often only seem to care about the lives of the unborn at the exclusion of other lives. Can you still call yourself pro-life and also be pro-death penalty? Or pro-war? Many people supported Trump because they believe that he would appoint conservative judges and that he did. He was able to change the makeup of the Judiciary to favor the conservative ideology. not just on the Supreme Court level. He appointed 194 judges to Federal benches. In four years, that is more than half of what Obama did in eight years (312) and more than twice Clinton (84). All of Trump's appointments are anti-abortion. But they are anti a lot of other stuff as well like the ACA (Affordable Care Act) and they are actively chipping away at this law that has given about six million Americans health care. This is during a pandemic, kinda sick. If you were actually pro-life wouldn't you be concerned about people getting affordable healthcare. Both his appointees to the Supreme Court are against the ACA. This law could very well be overturned during Biden's term in office. Will they still call themselves "pro-life" when their neighbors can longer afford their insulin or their mood stabilizers? 

In 1988, long before he was president, Trump placed this ad in several NYC newspapers trying to bring back the death penalty in New York State. 

This was in response to the Central Park Five who were five young black men who were wrongly imprisoned for the rape and murder of a white woman. In 2002, they were exonerated and released from prison. As you would expect, Trump never apologized. This man has a long trail of hate like this, yet many so called "pro lifers" support him solely on the basis that he'd appoint "pro-life" judges. Since July this year (2020), Trump has approved the execution of seven Federal prisoners and three more are schedule before he leaves office. Before this spree, we had gone 17 years without a Federal execution. Pro-life? I don't think so.

Yes, Roe v. Wade, the legal decision that effectively legalized abortion in this nation, could be overturned thanks to this President. If that is all you wanted, congratulations. All it would mean is that states would be able to make it illegal again and many states will. This will not stop abortions from happening in this country. People can just drive to a neighboring state to get it done. Even if every state made it illegal, they could drive to Europe, Canada or Mexico etc. It would just inconvenience the rich and prevent the poor from getting a legal and safe medical procedure. An estimated 25% of abortions would be prevented. Any economist will tell you that if a demand exists so will a market. Illegal abortions will happen and many of them will not be safe. Also, there will be self induction. Before legal abortion, this was popular. We don't want people giving themselves abortions. Before the internet, girls would use poison, pills, coat hangers or throw themselves down the stairs to end their pregnancies. In a misinformation age, I can't imagine what awful stuff you would find if you started googling how to do your own abortion. An estimated 200 women a year died seeking illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. But hey, if you want to call yourself "pro-life," go ahead, I just call you a hypocrite. This is why I use the term "anti-choice" to describe pro-lifers. They are not in protecting life at all; they are just into taking away other people's rights.  

If you want to be pro-life, you might want to start by not voting for scum like Trump. Abortion in America has decreased since the Roe decision and this has little to do with Roe. It has to do with the fact that we have increased sex education, increased women's access to healthcare and birth control and made adoption more affordable. All of these still need improvement. Putting an extremist like Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court for a rest of her life is not helping the matter. 

Future of Local Journalism and the Collapse of the Fourth Estate

Disruption (or creative destruction) in an economy can be a great thing and an awful thing simultaneously. When the automobile was introduced, this disrupted the livelihood of thousands of people who sold and serviced horses (horse-breakers and blacksmiths) and wagons (wheelwrights). While they all lost their jobs and businesses, thousands of businesses and jobs were created making cars, paving roads and selling gas. Disruption is inherit in capitalism. Technology is not the only disruptor, but it is the most common. The biggest disruptor in my life has been the introduction of the internet and ecommerce. Almost every industry has been affected: music, education, retail, movies and gyms among others. 

Brick and mortar stores are being killed by Amazon, movie theaters are being killed by Netflix and music stores almost don't exist anymore because you can buy a song instantly on your phone or stream for free. Jobs and careers have really been shuffling for the past decade or two. I have benefited by this as well. I have been able to have a high-tech job and tele-commute to NYC each day while living in my rural home in northern Vermont. This wasn't possible twenty years ago when I moved to VT. 

Of all these disruptions, the one that bothers me the most is what is happening with local newspapers. Local news is expensive. Newspapers have to employ reporters who attend town and city counsel meetings, local events, sporting events, car crashes and fires. This is, of course, in addition to their overhead and the expenses of producing the paper. Traditionally their revenue streams are the selling of advertisement space and classifieds. When I was young, if you were looking for a job or looking for a kitten, you had to pick up the local paper. Now you can go on Craigslist for free. Craigslist devastated the classified revenue for papers, which in turn greatly reduced circulation. When circulation is down, it is harder to sell advertisement. Collapse ensued. 

In 2000, the advertising revenue for newspapers peaked to over $70 billion in the US. In 2018, it had dropped to under $15 billion which is lower than the 1950's. As of 2019, 65 million Americans live in a county with one or zero local news sources. How do citizens stay informed if there is no local news source? How can they vote confidently? How do they find out about businesses that is polluting their water or a politician that is stealing from them? They don't. Meanwhile, your local clueless jackoff has a YouTube channel, he's "telling it like it is" and giving it out for free. People are not just uninformed, they are misinformed. 

Some papers are hanging in there with a digital presence, but digital advertising revenue is still very low. There is also an increase of digital subscription in the past few years. Four in ten people under the age of 35 have at least one digital subscription. Young people are figuring out that paying for media means you get better information. Regardless, the outlook for local news to remain local is not good. When is a local paper not local? 

Since its founding in 1906, Gannett has been going around buying up small newspapers and other media markets. In addition to owning US Today, they currently own 260 daily local newspapers and about 300 national papers. These including The Providence Journal, The Cincinnati Enquirer, Detroit Free Press, Indianapolis Star, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, El Paso Times etc.  They own media in 47 states and Guam. This is a lot of power. Gannet is not immune to circulation problems. They are losing circulation even higher than non-Gannett papers. Here in VT, our "local" Gannett paper, The Burlington Free Press, circulation is down more than 36% since 2017. How long can they can survive with numbers like that? 

The Void: In capitalistic societies, the voids left by failing industries and businesses are often filled quickly but not always in desirable ways. The New York Times this week ran an article about how pay-to-play organizations are filling this void. Political and/or corporate PR groups are paying free lance reporters to write articles supporting their agendas. That agenda could be to promote their business or attack their opponents in an election. These articles are then sold to less than credible "news" papers and not labelled as advertisements, which they should be (according to the Federal Trade Commission). Here is a list of them organized by state. You may recognize some of them. Perhaps you get one of them free in the mail or perhaps, you pick one up outside your local market. They look legit because they might have a real article about your local high school soccer team or a local fire, but they are not. In 2010, there were five of these. Now there are over 1200. Something you should always remember, when you get something for free, it is not the commodity, you are. You are being manipulated into voting for someone or buying a product.  It is not journalism that you are reading but an advertisement. 

On a more positive note, David Plotz, one of my favorite podcast journalists, has created a new venture called City Cast. Print may be dead or dying, but podcasting is thriving. He is trying to create a network of local podcasts in cities around the country where the void is at its worst. I listen to podcasts all day at work. When I jump in my car, I put them on. We listen in bed. If there was a local podcast that I liked, about my town or larger local towns, I'd be listening. I feel so clueless about local news and politics. He is trying to get this going, guess what? ... he's hiring.  Contact him if you are interested. I contacted David on Twitter to find what towns they are going to start with and I haven't heard back yet. I assume medium size cities like Portland or Cincinnati. Regardless, I am excited about this. Hopefully it is coming to your town soon.