The Reuters wire service pretends to be objective in its public rhetoric, but that's a bad joke. Look no further than this May 8 story on the new frontier of the abortion debate by reporters Brendan Pierson and Jessica Thomsen. The headline was "Abortion pill case to be heard by conservative, anti-abortion panel." It began:
“A case brought by anti-abortion groups seeking to ban the abortion pill mifepristone nationwide will be heard next week by a panel of three deeply conservative judges hostile to abortion rights, a federal appeals court revealed on Monday.”
The C-word kept coming up:
The Supreme Court's conservative majority last year used the same case to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and find there was no right to abortion enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
[Judge James] Ho last month also spoke to the conservative Federalist Society's Dallas chapter in defense of [Judge Matthew] Kacsmaryk, who he called a friend, after the Washington Post reported the then-nominee did not disclose to the U.S. Senate ahead of his confirmation hearing a law review article he helped write that criticized protections for people seeking abortions.
"People" who are pregnant and seeking a terminator. In his tweet, Pierson upped the ante, with "very conservative" judges:
— Brendan Pierson (@brenpiers) May 8, 2023
It's funny that no abortion lobbyists or politicians were quoted in the piece. There were only anodyne mentions of Biden administration officials. This was the second paragraph:
The Biden administration is expected to urge the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in New Orleans on May 17 to overturn a court order that suspended the federal government's approval of mifepristone.
Reuters also employed the usual formulation on the science: "Scientific studies have overwhelmingly concluded that the drug, which has been used by millions of women, is safe." Safe for aborting women, but "scientific studies" apparently don't consider the unborn baby to be a human, or someone whose safety you consider. That's liberal thinking, but there are no "liberals" identified in this story.
Instead, the FDA and Danco (the makers of the abortion pill) stated a ban "would both harm the public and destabilize the pharmaceutical industry."
In February, Reuters reporter Gabriella Borter devoted a whole story to "abortion rights advocates" and there wasn't an ideological label for anyone on the Left.
At the bottom of this deeply biased story was a link the Reuters Trust Principles, but they might not want people to click on it, since it's embarrassing.
The Trust Principles are:
That Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group, or faction;
That the integrity, independence, and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;
That Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters, and other media subscribers and to businesses, governments, institutions, individuals, and others with whom Reuters has or may have contracts;
