As my home state of Indiana moved to become the first in the country to pass abortion prohibitions in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, it quickly became clear that the state's journalist class would spend every last ounce of energy resisting lawmakers' efforts to save children.
It doesn't come as a shock to anyone to find out that those in media have a left-wing bias or that they prefer social activism to objective reporting. That's one small blessing of the advent of alternative and social media outlets – people can fact-check the "fact-checkers" and reveal the pseudo-journalism of our day for the propaganda it so often is.
But I can't help but admit how depressing it is to actually want to find common ground with those who I believe have a legitimate and vital role to play in the preservation of our republic (the media), only to find how disinterested they are in the same.
For instance, one of my biggest concerns in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision has been the massive weight that is about to be placed on foster care and adoption programs. Take Indiana as an example. The Hoosier state currently has about 10,000 children in foster care. Last year, there were nearly 8,000 abortions committed. Assuming those 8,000 children were "unwanted," then all other things being equal, the enactment of the state's new abortion law could come close to doubling – or at least significantly increasing – those current foster care numbers.
That is a serious issue that, for the sake of weary and worried foster parents, as well as the precious children placed with them, cannot and should not be ignored by any of us.
That's why I was optimistic when I saw the IndyStar publish a piece by Rachel Fradette about this very issue. And to be sure, there were some very moving and motivating parts of her article that the megaphone of media helps us all hear.
But frustratingly, Fradette and her editors at the Star found it appropriate to balance the legitimate and important parts of the article with both shrewdly understated, as well as flagrantly provocative, disdain for the state's move to save children from dismemberment.
Rather than applying a disciplined, journalistic focus on the need for increased foster care funding, or the necessary streamlining of the adoptive process, or even a call to restructure the entire system, so much of Fradette's article was spent backhandedly bemoaning the abortion ban itself and clapping at "anti-abortion" activists and "anti-abortion clinics." The latter, professionally referred to as pregnancy resource centers, is a favorite target of far-left activists like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who recently called to use the power of government to "shut every last one of them down."
While it is logically impossible to reconcile a legitimate concern for women and children with such an absurd demand, just days before writing her article on foster care and adoption, Rachel Fradette was tweeting out the same irresponsible slander:
That's an exasperating take from someone who would plead in her article:
There are a number of stressors already weighing on expectant mothers, especially those in crisis. That can include housing, employment, medical costs and their health.
Those are the precise stressors and needs that pregnancy resource centers (the ones Fradette diminishes as mere "anti-abortion clinics"), funded by the generosity of religious and altruistic private citizens (the ones Fradette disparages as mere "anti-abortion activists") provide.
Perhaps those on the left are still brooding over the Dobbs decision and don't feel overly inclined to work with those of us who applauded the ruling. At some point, I hope that stubbornness subsides. Because the truth is that there is a looming crisis for innocent children and the good people desperately trying to help them find loving homes.
Is it mind-boggling to me that anyone could look at that situation and conclude, "See, we'd all be better off if those thousands of extra kids were just killed"? Yes, it is. It gives me a sick feeling in my stomach to even think about.
But if those people would just be willing to set aside their frustration that the killing will be less prolific in a post-Roe world, they'd find many of us ready and willing to work together on actual solutions that help mothers, fathers, children, and families.
