Kat's+Page


 * = =Plan B=
 * = =Plan B=

A political health debate in its 10th year
|| Since its FDA approval in 1999, the emergency contraceptive "Plan B" has been surrounded by controversy and debate. By 2003, the FDA had solidified plans to allow Plan B to be sold over-the-counter; however the details of the restrictions on purchase and use were unclear. Debate over whether the OTC age should be 17 or 18 was one of many issues that kept any decision on Plan B from being made from 2004 to 2006. Many FDA officials resigned out of frustration at the delays. Senators Clinton and Murray used what influence they had by threatening to block appointments of FDA directors on multiple occasions. Numerous proposals were presented for consideration, but no decision could be reached. Finally, in August of 2006, the FDA approved Plan B for OTC distribution to women ages 18 and older and for prescription distribution for women 17 and younger. The politics that surrounded this decision had delayed it seven years, but in 2009, a federal judge ordered the FDA to change the age of OTC distribution to 17 and older. And so the debate continues… ||
 * = =Mainstream Media Coverage= ||
 * < ==Example 1==

//[|NYT Coverage]//
April 23, 2009

F.D.A. Easing Access to ‘Morning After’ Pill
By [|GARDINER HARRIS] WASHINGTON — Seventeen-year-olds will soon be allowed to buy morning-after contraceptive pills without a doctor’s prescription after federal drug regulators complied with a judge’s order and lowered the age limit by a year. The decision on Wednesday by the [|Food and Drug Administration], which overturns one of the most controversial health rulings of the Bush administration, was scorned by [|abortion] opponents and hailed by their abortion rights counterparts. The long-running controversy involving [|Plan B] has had more of a political impact than a public health one. The drug consists of two pills that can prevent conception if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, and is not related to [|RU-486], the abortion pill. Since 2006, when Plan B became widely available to women 18 and over without a prescription, it has had no measurable effect on the nation’s abortion or [|teenage pregnancy] rates. Like their older counterparts, 17-year-old women will now be able to go to almost any pharmacy, clinic or hospital and, after showing proof of age, buy Plan B without a prescription. Men 17 and older may also buy Plan B for a partner. The agency’s decision came after Judge [|Edward R. Korman] of Federal District Court in New York ruled last month in a highly unusual case that the agency’s decision to limit easy access to Plan B to those 18 and older was driven by politics, not science. He gave the agency 30 days to lower the age limit to 17. [|In a brief statement], the F.D.A. said that it would not appeal Judge Korman’s order and that it had sent a letter to the drug’s manufacturer saying that the company “may, upon submission and approval of an appropriate application, market Plan B without a prescription to women 17 years of age and older.” Denise Bradley, a spokeswoman for Teva Pharmaceuticals, a giant Israeli generic drug maker that manufactures Plan B, said in a statement that the company supported the agency’s decision and that it would “work closely with F.D.A. to ensure that all provisions of this decision are met.” Contraception advocates hailed the news. “Today’s announcement by the F.D.A. is a strong statement to American women that their health comes before politics,” said Cecile Richards, president of the [|Planned Parenthood Federation]]][| of America], a group that provides reproductive services, including abortions. “The U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancy among the most developed countries in the world.” Wendy Wright, president of [|Concerned Women for America], a conservative advocacy organization, said the agency’s decision was driven by politics and a mistaken judicial decision. “Parents should be furious at the F.D.A.’s complete disregard for parental rights and the safety of minors,” Ms. Wright said. Contraception advocates have pushed for easy access to Plan B for girls and women of all ages because the longer a woman delays in taking the medicine after unprotected sex, the more likely she will become pregnant. Eliminating doctors from the transactions, it was hoped, would lead to far fewer pregnancies and abortions. Indeed, advocates once predicted that widespread and easy access to emergency contraceptives would cut the number of induced abortions in half and slash teenage birth rates. But young people in the United States have so much unprotected sex — one in three girls under the age of 20 will get pregnant, with 80 percent of the pregnancies unplanned — that Plan B has been little more than a sandbag on an overtopped flood wall. Even women who are given the medicine free often fail to take it after having unprotected sex. “This is not going to be a cheap cure to the unintended [|pregnancy] epidemic in this country,” said James Trussell, director of the [|Office of Population Research at][|Princeton University]]]. “It’s very depressing.” But while the promise of emergency contraceptives has been largely unrealized, so have the predictions of disaster. Abortion opponents said easier access to Plan B would lead women to have more unprotected sex and more abortions. There is no evidence that either has happened. The debate surrounding the medicine is seen even by the pharmaceutical industry as having tarnished the F.D.A., and the Obama administration’s low-key change of the drug’s age limit was a typical effort to avoid becoming ensnared in a cultural controversy. By contrast, the Bush administration delayed issuing a decision for three years and acted only after members of Congress threatened to block the confirmation of the next F.D.A. commissioner. The agency’s own scientists were united in supporting over-the-counter sales to those at least as young as 17, although staff members said in depositions that they were convinced that no amount of scientific evidence would have persuaded Bush administration appointees to approve such a decision. Such “political considerations, delays and implausible justifications” showed that the agency had acted without good faith, Judge Korman wrote in his decision.
 * Appears Unbiased
 * The statistics provided:
 * represent the effects, or lack there of, of Plan B on the general population
 * Tend to support the conservative view.
 * Prove general ineffectiveness of Plan B to impact national number of pregnancies and abortions
 * Attention given to the ineffectiveness of Plan B vs. that given to the inaccuracy of right-wing "predictions of disaster" is questionable.
 * Paragraphs: Article proves right Unprotected sex and incompetence run so deep in the American teen that Plan B is "little more than a sandbag on an overtopped flood wall."
 * Two Sentences: Article disproves right wing: Plan B has not caused "women to have more unprotected sex and more abortions"
 * Quotes from both sides of the argument
 * Equal coverage does not appear to be motivated by the illusion of saliency because of nature of the issue. ||
 * = =Citizen Media Coverage= ||
 * < ==Example 1==

[|Cristina Page]
Author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America Posted March 24, 2009 | 12:39 AM (EST) [|The Morning After Pill Conspiracy]

If Bush waged a war on science then yesterday the war crime tribunal spoke. The U.S. District court of the Eastern District of New York [|ruled] that the Bush administration had politicized a once respected regulatory agency, the FDA, for bending the law to its right wing purposes. The court's condemnation was comprehensive and brutal, all but labeling the Bushies political criminals. At issue was the FDA's decision to overrule its staff recommendation and restrict access for adolescents to one of the most effective methods of preventing unwanted pregnancy, emergency contraception. The Court, in one excoriating stroke, reversed the first (and let's hope last) ideological decision the FDA ever made. The decision could not have been more dismissive of the Bush administration's maneuverings. Mincing no words, the Court concluded that the FDA "acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure," "departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures," and engaged in "repeated and unreasonable delays." The court also found that the FDA's justification for denying over-the-counter access to minors "lacks all credibility," and was based on "fanciful and wholly unsubstantiated 'enforcement' concerns." The Court ordered the FDA to reconsider it's decision based on scientific evidence alone. In the meantime, it ordered the agency to make the contraceptive available over-the-counter to 17-year-olds within 30 days as it now does for adults. The decision comes amidst news that US teen birth rates are spiking for the second year in a row. Those Bush era virginity pledgers are shifting smoothly into teen motherhood -- the legacies of ignorance-only sex education and restricted access to and information about contraception. The decision was prompted by a case, Tummino v. von Eschenbach, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) in 2005. The plaintiffs in the case were a grassroots groups called the Morning After Pill Conspiracy along with over 70 medical and public health organizations, scientists, and parents. For those who did not follow the case closely it's worth reviewing not only how the Bushies imposed their theological agenda, but how they indifferently bent regulatory procedures. The administration ruthlessly ignored the facts and coerced FDA scientists to implement its anti-science agenda. According to a CRR press release, "Before its action on Plan B (emergency contraception) the FDA had never restricted a non-prescription drug based on a person's age, nor had the Bush Administration ever been consulted by the FDA about an over-the-counter drug application. Depositions of senior FDA officials by the Center in 2006 indicated that the Bush Administration sought to unduly influence the agency during the Plan B application review process. Testimony also indicated that officials involved in the decision-making process were concerned about losing their jobs if they did not follow the administration's political directives." It was in other words, get with the program. CRR continued: "Other evidence uncovered during the lawsuit showed that the agency repeatedly departed from its own established procedures during the FDA case, from filling the reproductive health committee with political "operatives" to making a decision to reject over-the-counter access to Plan B before completion of the standard review." For years, I've been following the right's takeover of what had been a scientifically driven process. In researching a book, //How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America//, I studied the violation of the FDA in detail. One fundamental thing I learned: anti-contraception crusaders were not just interested in limiting access for minors. Their true intent was to prevent all women from easy access to the pregnancy prevention method. Their more uncensored leaders, like Judie Brown of the American Life League, admitted as much, explaining, "the best thing the FDA can do now for the American women and their progeny is to take the next logical step and remove these pills for the market altogether." In the service of this goal, it seemed that nothing was off limits, not scientific integrity nor the will of the majority. The decision to limit minors' access to emergency contraception was based on phony arguments put forth in particular by Bush appointee to the FDA panel, David Hager, a long-standing opponent of contraception. Hager's supposed concern was that the proven usefulness of the medication would be overshadowed by 9 and 10 year olds who would "abuse" the drug, as if it were some sort of crack for kids. During the application review process, Hager called for unavailable research to quell his "concerns" that the drug would be abused by pre-teens. "The plans for introduction of Plan B into the non-treatment setting need more evaluation if it is going to be generalizably available to a nine year old regardless, a ten year old regardless of, you know; there's no restriction," Hager explained. This line of argument shocked other panel members. One, Dr. Abbey Berenson, a professor of pediatrics and ob/gyn at University of Texas, countered, "I would just like to make a point that it is extremely rare that the nine or ten year old has menstrual cycles and so if we're going to talk about adolescents, let's talk about the mean age of menarche in this country is 12, and I can't imagine where a nine-year-old would get $40 to go buy Plan B over the counter and who would buy it for this nine year old." The drug had been studied as part of the effort to determine whether EC was safe. Females from twelve to fifty had been sampled, including sixty-six between the age of twelve and sixteen years old. Adolescents understood 60 to 97 percent of the drug-product package directions and materials, at a comprehension level similar to that of women as a whole and one that easily met standards previously accepted for the approval of the other over-the-counter drugs. Hager continued to create a straw man, or in this case, straw girl, that defenseless nine or ten year old, and then imagined that she was taken advantage of. It was an argument that none of his illustrious fellow panel members thought had merit. Hager nonetheless persisted: "Well I'm sorry, but there are young women that age [under twelve] who do start menstrual cycles and although the numbers aren't large, it is enough of a concern that if there's an 11-year old who is having a menstrual period and becoming sexually active, then she chooses to access this means of emergency contraception, and my only point is not the number. It's that we don't have any information available on that younger age population." Of course, less than six percent of girls younger than age eleven have started their menses, and 4.2 percent of girls under age thirteen are sexually active. Take that microscopic demographic and divide it by the percent that know EC even exists and who also have $40 to drop and you have the nearly non-existent basis for Hager's, and what would eventually be the FDA's, argument against extending over-the-counter access to EC for minors. After the FDA decision to restrict minor's access to the contraceptive method, several panel members who favored over-the-counter access expressed their outrage at the decision, writing, "If groups with moral objections wish to prevent the sale of a class of drugs, they should proceed through the legislative process. They should not corrupt the scientific review process of the FDA to achieve their ends. We believe it will be very hard to put this genie back in the bottle. We squander public trust at out peril." Today, the US district court finally got the anti-contraception genie, and some of the bullying lawless politics of the Bush era, back in the bottle, at least for now. As for the public's trust, that'll take a little longer to fix.


 * Author:
 * Fervently supports the expansion of OTC availablility of Plan B
 * has contempt for the people who kept such expansion from occuring earlier.
 * Quotes from the ruling that ordered the FDA to expand availability
 * Referring to the FDA as acting "in bad faith and in response to political pressure"
 * support the author's partisan views
 * Page on the Bush administration and their interferance.
 * Ripping on their approach to a national issue
 * "Bushies" left a legacy " of ignorance-only sex education
 * Restricted access to and information about contraception"
 * Propagated the issue they were trying to defeat.
 * Recounts hearings
 * Attacksthe Bush appointee
 * "Hager's supposed concern...that the proven usefulness of the medication would be overshadowed by 9 and 10 year olds who would "abuse" the drug, as if it were some sort of crack for kids."
 * Presents statistics to support her incredulous tone. These numbers, if accurate, prove Hagar's concerns as having a "nearly non-existent basis."
 * Informative piece
 * Shaped to inform the reader of why he should agree with the author ||
 * = =Mainstream Media Coverage= ||
 * < == Example 2==

CNN
media type="custom" key="3805115"
 * Galanos
 * Makes his opinions clear
 * puts verbal emphasis on underage, minors, parental consent, substance abuse
 * The Sex Educator
 * points out that 16 is legal age of consent
 * points out a prescription does not mean parental consent
 * points out its not a drug that would be abused
 * she overturns his whole argument
 * Galanos
 * claims Plan B is a "powerful drug"
 * disregards the previous statment that prescription does not mean parental involvement
 * throughout whole interview, he ignores anything that does not fit with his few arguments against expanding availability
 * Visual
 * Hand holding the pill had a wedding ring
 * when explaining the drug, visual of doctor writing prescription
 * while sex educator was speaking, visual of lots of pregnant women. ||
 * = =Citizen Media Coverage= ||
 * < ==Example 2==

[|Albert Mohler]
|| (Albert Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY) =The Morning After Pill and the End of Parenthood= Posted: Friday, April 24, 2009 at 3:13 pm ET The secular left is a diverse amalgam of various interest groups and ideologies. Of course, the same is true to some extent on the conservative end of the spectrum as well. But on some issues the secular left is absolutely of one mind and voice, and the promotion of birth control and contraception is one of these issues. To the left, birth control is central to the modern project of liberation. Pregnancy and parenthood limit other endeavors, to say the very least. The project of liberating sex from marriage and sex within marriage from reproduction is central to the modern quest for autonomy. The Pill allowed a radical expansion in non-marital sex, for example, now freed from concern about pregnancy. The Pill represented a moral revolution of incalculable magnitude. For the feminist movement, support for birth control and abortion on demand is rooted in the explicit desire to "level the playing field" with men. The Pill, feminists announced, was the liberation of women from the problem of an unwanted and untimely pregnancy. If an unwanted pregnancy did occur, abortion on demand would resolve that problem. This drive for reproductive control is a central obsession of the left, and it has infected many who would otherwise classify themselves as conservative as well. It also explains what is going on with the decision of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to allow the morning-after pill to be sold over the counter to girls as young as 17. That [|announcement] came April 22, and is the essence of brevity for a governmental agency: //On March 23, 2009, a federal court issued an order directing the FDA, within 30 days, to permit the Plan B drug sponsor to make Plan B available to women 17 and older without a prescription. The government will not appeal this decision. In accordance with the court’s order, and consistent with the scientific findings made in 2005 by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA notified the manufacturer of Plan B informing the company that it may, upon submission and approval of an appropriate application, market Plan B without a prescription to women 17 years of age and older. Plan B is manufactured by Duramed Research, Inc. of Bala Cynwyd, Pa//. "Plan B" is the commercial name of the morning-after pill (levonorgestrel). The tablet is indeed a form of birth control, and some believe it potentially to be an abortifacient. According to the [|Plan B Web site], the pill works this way: "Plan B contains two pills taken 12 hours apart that contain a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. Plan B works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy." The commercial name of the pill just about says it all. When "Plan A" doesn't work, use "Plan B." Plan A, we should note, means using birth control. No one in these circles would dare suggest that Plan A should mean not having sex. Last month, a federal court judge in Manhattan ordered the FDA to allow over-the-counter sale of Plan B to girls as young as 17, reversing a Bush administration policy. The left erupted in celebration. [|//The New York Times//] published an [|editorial] declaring, "Judge Edward R. Korman wisely ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make the pill available without prescription to women as young as 17 and to consider approving it for girls of any age, as major medical groups have long advocated." That's right, "girls of any age." Today, with the FDA decision just released, the [|//Times//] celebrates the news with [|this lead]: "Seventeen-year-olds will soon be allowed to buy morning-after contraceptive pills without a doctor’s prescription after federal drug regulators complied with a judge’s order and lowered the age limit by a year." The paper went on to report: //Like their older counterparts, 17-year-old women will now be able to go to almost any pharmacy, clinic or hospital and, after showing proof of age, buy Plan B without a prescription. Men 17 and older may also buy Plan B for a partner//. So females of 17 are now "women" and 17-year-old males are now "men." This is made necessary by the logic of the paper's worldview. They argue that these young people are old enough to make this decision alone, without parental oversight or medical advice. The paper further explained: //Contraception advocates have pushed for easy access to Plan B for girls and women of all ages because the longer a woman delays in taking the medicine after unprotected sex, the more likely she will become pregnant. Eliminating doctors from the transactions, it was hoped, would lead to far fewer pregnancies and abortions//. Again, note the "of all ages" reference. In the March 24 editorial, the paper included this sentence: "The harder question is whether to remove all age and other restrictions, potentially allowing children as young as 11 or 12 to take the drug without medical supervision." As young as 11 or 12? Following this logic, 11-year-old girls will now be 11-year-old women, able to purchase Plan B from the pharmacy without a prescription (and long before they can legally drive themselves to the pharmacy). Today, the paper began its [|editorial] with this: //In a further break from the Bush administration’s ideologically driven policies on birth control, the Food and Drug Administration has agreed to let 17-year-olds get the morning-after emergency contraceptive pills without a doctor’s prescription. It is a wise move that complies with a recent order by a federal judge, based on voluminous evidence in F.D.A. files that girls that young can use the pills safely//. Here is a clue -- whenever anyone (including this writer) claims that a policy reversal means a break from someone else's "ideologically driven policies," it simply means that one ideology is replacing or modifying another. //The New York Times// is the central media organ of the secular left. It is as ideologically driven as any other sector of this society. Furthermore, the idea that any serious policy discussion can be free from ideology is a farce. The editors of //The New York Times// merely prefer their own ideology to that of the Bush administration, yet they write this editorial as if they have come from their own private planet of ideological purity. One key insight into the paper's ideology: Note the references in both editorials and news reports to the claim that evidence proves that young girls "can use the pills safely." Clearly, the paper means to speak of medical safety. But what about other aspects of these girls' lives? Is it morally safe? Spiritually safe? Safe to a tender heart? No, the main issue in the FDA policy is this -- safe from parental supervision. The morning after pill is now a potent symbol of the end of parenthood as we know it.

This news coverage of the change in Plan B availability ranges from partisan to centrist, factual to emotional. A comparison of these examples shows that both citizen and mainstream media try to appear credible. However, mainstream media can approach this goal by trying to remain unbiased or by trying to create a believable source. Citizen media seems to rely more on passion. When presenting an argument, citizen media sources will try to discredit the opposing view through ridicule and will present one’s own view with little or inaccurate support. The //New York Times// provides a source of mainstream media that prides itself in reliability. This article does its best to appear unbiased, and overall, it accomplishes this goal. However, it does a few things that appear somewhat biased. The statistics provided to represent the effects, or lack there of, of Plan B on the general population tends to support the conservative view. They prove that neither the average number of terminated pregnancies nor the number of unplanned pregnancies has been reduced. This is statement of fact, and therefore, assuming accuracy, it is unbiased. However, the attention given to the ineffectiveness of Plan B versus that given to the inaccuracy of right-wing "predictions of disaster" is questionable. The article makes it clear that unprotected sex and incompetence run so deep in the American teen that Plan B is "little more than a sandbag on an overtopped flood wall." With the bulk of the article that does not discuss the new ruling on distribution or the nature of the drug being devoted to discussion of the drug's ineffectiveness, the two sentences set aside to relieve the fears that Plan B had caused "women to have more unprotected sex and more abortions" seem somewhat inadequate. Apart from this unbalanced coverage of the accuracy of partisan speculation, the article manages to remain in the center. There are quotes from both sides of the argument and, considering the public and widespread nature of the debate of abortion, women's rights, and, therefore, Plan B, the equal coverage does not appear to be motivated by the illusion of saliency. The first example of citizen media makes no attempt to appear unbiased. The author fervently supports the expansion of OTC availability of Plan B. Furthermore, she has contempt for the people who kept such expansion from occurring earlier. The article contains many quotes from the ruling that ordered the FDA to expand availability. Such quotes referring to the FDA as acting "in bad faith and in response to political pressure" are used to support the author's partisan views rather than to fairly represent one of two understandable points-of-view. Page unabashedly expresses her opinion, but she is sure to use seemingly reliable examples such as these quotes to support her ideas. Page goes on to slander the Bush administration and their interference in the 2006 discussions of Plan B. She begins by ripping on their approach to a national issue. According to Page, the "Bushies" left a legacy "of ignorance-only sex education and restricted access to and information about contraception" which only served to propagate the issue they were trying to defeat. She then recounts a tale of blithering fools trying to win support for their ignorance. Whether this is an accurate representation of the proceedings or not is irrelevant to Page's endeavors. She takes particular pleasure in attacking the Bush appointee, David Hagar. In an ever condescending tone, Page presents "Hager's supposed concern...that the proven usefulness of the medication would be overshadowed by 9 and 10 year olds who would "abuse" the drug, as if it were some sort of crack for kids." Later, she presents statistics to support her incredulous tone. These numbers, if accurate, prove Hagar's concerns as having a "nearly non-existent basis." Page makes her opinion on the issue very clear. While an informative piece, it is shaped to inform the reader of why he should agree with the author. It wins some credibility with the statistics, history, and quotes, but ultimately, this article is simply biased. Galanos, a reporter for CNN, starts his discussion of Plan B by making clear, through tone and word choice, his disapproval of the court’s ruling. He uses words like “underage,” “minor,” “without parental consent,” and “abuse.” Without any statement of true fact, Galanos manages to portray an image of someone with an understanding of the evils of this drug. This persona is challenged in his interview with the sex educator. She points out his many misconceptions: teens have sex before the legal age of adulthood, a prescription does not guarantee parental consent, and Plan B is not a drug worth abusing. She easily overturns all of Galanos’ points on why the court’s ruling was unwise. However, Galanos shrugs off her corrections. When he regains the camera, he establishes Plan B as a “powerful drug, “ and he continues to associate the need for a prescription with the need for parental involvement. In order to hold onto the charismatic and confident //ethos//, Galanos ignores his guest. The most interesting parts of this segment that show bias are the visuals provided. When a woman’s hand is taking a pill from the Plan B packaging, the hand has a wedding ring. This noticeably avoids condoning premarital sex. While not emphasized, it gives the impression that only women who are married should need this product. When the nature of the drug is being explained, one sees a doctor writing prescriptions. This gives the impression of support for prescription distribution and, therefore, a lack of support for OTC distribution. While the sex educator is poking holes in Galanos’ argument, footage of pregnant women is showing. As the aim of this drug is to avoid unwanted pregnancy and the educator is portrayed as an advocate of emergency contraception, this visual gives a subconscious impression that she is ineffective and not credible. This piece is biased. Through words and visuals, it manages to create a sense of reliability that encourages the viewer to question the expansion of availability to Plan B. Albert Mohler is a citizen who expresses his opinion on such matters as Plan B with fervor. His conservative opinion comes through from the start of the article when he puts all left wing thinkers in the same category. He then labels that category as one of immoral, sexually irresponsible, feminists. He continues on by mocking this leftist coalition by implying its deviation from standard, conservative morals that, in reality, many liberals may support. He goes on to attack the integrity of the left wing argument for the expansion of Plan B availability. He questions the assertion that 17-year-olds are men and women, but then he goes on to indulge in sarcasm: "Following this logic, 11-year-old girls will now be 11-year-old women." He robs the left wing view of credibility by insinuating that the progression of changes such as this one would lead to the absurd. Mohler is sure to exploit the argument of protecting children. In his title he references the “end of parenthood.” Like Galanos, Mohler makes the incorrect assumption that prescriptions are accompanied by parental supervision. He uses this assumption to overdramatize the affects of this one year expansion of OTC availability, claiming it to be “the end of parenthood as we know it.” Mohler also tries to appeal to readers through //pathos// when he asks "Is it morally safe? Spiritually safe? Safe to a tender heart?" He places doubt in the minds of anyone who considers himself a protector of children. Mohler attacks the //New York Times// article that covered the court’s ruling. Mohler claims that the article is biased, and he accuses the //Times// of being an overly liberal source. As discussed above, this particular //Times// article seems to be moderate. However, by attacking the //Times//, Mohler discredits other sources, leaving his opinion to rise above more reasoned or accurate media. The lesson to be learned is media cannot be relied upon. If one is looking for the appearance of accurate and credible reporting, one should look at mainstream media. However, if one is interested in understanding the viewpoints of people passionate about their topics, one should turn to citizen media. Ultimately, all media can be accused of bias and inaccuracy. Often such accusations are somewhat justified. All consumers can shop for is news reported in a way they like to hear. ||
 * Conservative view
 * lumps left wing views
 * attacks morality of feminism, sexual freedom, and this expansion of Plan B
 * Uses sarcasm:
 * "No one in these circles would dare suggest that Plan A should mean not having sex."
 * "Following this logic, 11-year-old girls will now be 11-year-old women"
 * Pathos: "Is it morally safe? Spiritually safe? Safe to a tender heart?"
 * Makes same parentel supervision mistake as Galanos (ex. 3)
 * overdramatizes
 * title
 * "the end of parenthood as we know it."
 * Attacks NYT article (ex. 1)
 * claims it is favoring left
 * uses quotes to support claim
 * in reality, NYT article is center/right in its presentation of the issue
 * < =Comparative Analysis=