Not Looking at the Whole Picture

I am critiquing an article from FOX News’ opinion section regarding the U.S. House of Representatives’ vote to bar Planned Parenthood health centers from all federal funding. In the article, Planned Parenthood Poised to Take a Very Hard Fall -- And It Should, the author (P. Y. Nance) largely expresses that abortions are bad and therefore Planned Parenthood does not deserve federal money. Now, although Fox News claims to be an unbiased network, using slogans like, “We report. You decide.” and “Fair and Balanced”, it is widely considered to be very conservative. So the audience that Nance is reaching out to is assumedly conservative too. Throughout the article, Nance describes the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Planned Parenthood as an evil pro-abortion clinic, even naming it “the crown jewel of the abortion industry”. Her best reasoning for America’s supposed pro-life shift seems to be that babies are cute. Nance cites improvements in sonograms/ultrasounds as making “the public increasingly predisposed against abortion.” And she even uses an old motor oil commercial - which shows a fetus as a Nascar driver - to support her argument that America’s views are changing about abortion. That is quite a far stretch; I have seen a number of commercials with babies - some driving cars, others are rollerskating, and my personal favorite -- a baby e-trader. Is this a sign that there is a “seismic political shift” on abortions? NOPE! Babies are just amusing to watch, especially when they portray adult attributes. She then tries to argue that anyone who has seen a sonogram picture in the past decade, must favor the pro-life position. It seems to me that Nance does not consider the real issues that go in to deciding what to do about an unexpected pregnancy; she is happy to just emphasize the fact that babies are cute.
Now, I am by no means pro-abortion. Personally I don’t believe that I could ever, EVER choose to terminate a pregnancy, but the beauty of the matter is that I HAVE THE CHOICE TO MAKE MYSELF!! But that’s not what this blog is about. My views on pro-life vs. pro-choice are a whole other topic.
I think what’s most important here is that Nance only focuses on one aspect of Planned Parenthood. PP also uses funding to provide low-income women (and men) with birth control; screenings for cancer, cholesterol, diabetes, blood pressure, and thyroid issues; testing for sexually transmitted diseases; tetanus and flu vaccines; and annual physicals. They also offer help/ advice on body image, healthy relationships, and quitting smoking. It’s troubling to me that Nance was able to overlook all of this just to try to make Planned Parenthood look like the bad guy, focusing on abortions.
This article did not change my point of view AT ALL about Planned Parenthood and my belief that it is wrong to cut their funding. I do not see any evidence that her point (PP should take a hard fall) is valid. And although our views may vary, I would at least expect an intelligent journalist to have some kind of evidence to back up her argument.