Social media companies have publicly struggled with moderating explicit or controversial content, which has often resulted in an overreaction and the elimination of what companies consider unacceptable. Recently, YouTube announced that it had removed several websites that it determined “violated its hate speech rules.” But is that really what the social media company did? After all, often times it seems like “hate speech” is code for the removal of content deemed by the progressive Left as right-leaning.
This has happened several times this year. In an effort to silence conservative commentator Steven Crowder because of complaints made by an LGBT identified reporter, YouTube demonetized his account to make it impossible for him to make money off of his videos from the streaming service. Although it wasn’t a major revenue loss for Crowder, who has other revenue streams, but the silencing of Crowder spread to other pages as well.
Live Action has perhaps had the most trouble of all conservative leaning outlets. The pro-life organization has seen its content censored on Pinterest, YouTube and now Facebook. In the case of Pinterest, a whistleblower revealed that Live Action’s website had been labeled as “porn” in the backend coding. This designation limited the ability of people to share positive, pro-life stories from Live Action. Videos on YouTube have been, in some cases, blocked or limited, and it is no longer possible for Live Action to generate ad content.
Facebook is the latest social media website to take action against Live Action’s pro-life message. The world’s largest social media platform notified users that an “independent fact checker” determined that a statement made by Live Action president Lila Rose is false. Her specific statement that “abortion is never medically necessary” was given at the Young America’s Foundation. This check was done by two abortionists on a new website claiming to operate as a “fact-checker,” which says that “accurate information is the foundation of a functioning democracy.”
The statement is something we can all agree with, but it sounds awfully similar to progressive drivel given by supposed truth-seekers like The Washington Post, who’s slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” After all, the Daily Wire recently ran an article talking about how “truth” and “facts” have become vague phrases that are often subject to interpretation or sometimes entirely dependent on someone’s political or philosophical leanings.
What Lila Rose said is correct in 99.9% of the cases. Abortion is never medically necessary to protect the life of the mother. But one of the problems is that the term “health” has been so broadly defined that it can mean physical, financial or mental health. Basically, a woman can have an abortion for essentially any reason, according to the law in some states.
In the rare cases that the continuation of the pregnancy is considered medically dangerous, there is always one clear option, which is that physicians can induce a woman into early labor and deliver the child in order to treat the mother’s condition. The child may or may not survive after birth, but the physicians never have to intentionally kill the child. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists describes babies born early in order to save the life of the mother as “previable separations,” which are “done with the intent to save both if possible, but at least save the life of one.”
There is only one medical procedure where it is necessary to remove the child to save a mother’s life, and that is an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube and has no chance of survival. But calling it abortion, which is an elective procedure, is a bit of a stretch to say the least. The problem is that pro-abortion activists don’t really care about the truth.
Facebook and other social media organizations should stop trying to portray themselves as unbiased and just publicly embrace their progressive ideology. It is dangerous for a business to continually claim its self-righteousness while peddling a specific political viewpoint. After all, some will begin to believe false claims if they’re repeated consistently enough.