By Laura Echevarria
The signing of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) was not only long overdue and exciting for the families of victims, but it also represented clear evidence that our nation is gradually recognizing that when a pregnant mother is brutally attacked, her unborn child is a second victim.
Yet from many years of experience, I've learned that even when the moral rightness of a piece of legislation is plain to see, the media will often present the debate in such a way that the pro-life side's perspective is belittled or treated as less important. In the past, we've had to argue with bookers and producers of television programs to get our people on newscasts, to be able to use fetal models, or to even have reporters use neutral language.
For readily apparent reasons, I was not going to hold my breath in anticipation of news coverage of the signing of the UVVA which took place April 1. To my astonishment, overall, the coverage was pretty good.
Three cable networks, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, provided live coverage of the signing in the East Room of the White House. The Chyrons that scrolled across the bottom of the screen - - the names of people and the tidbits of information that add details to the news story - - were descriptive and informative without being either overtly sympathetic or overtly hostile. There was all that we ever ask for:
balance.
On the networks, ABC and NBC each ran a short segment. CBS ignored the event, but had called NRLC's Media Relations department earlier in the day. They told one staffer that the newsworthiness of the event surprised them and they were scrambling to try to put something together. Poor planning apparently lead to poor coverage on CBS.
Even the notoriously hostile Peter Jennings of ABC's World News Tonight played it down the middle. "The bill's supporters invoked the murder of a pregnant California woman, Laci Peterson, to build support for the law. Her mother and stepfather attended today's ceremony, and Mr. Bush said there clearly were two deaths in this particular case."
The White House Bulletin, reported that the Washington Times, several local stations, and the wire services all mentioned that John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, voted against the bill. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the networks chose not to mention Kerry's vote, a glaring omission considering that his rival, pro-life President George W. Bush, had actively promoted the measure.
Moreover, the Washington Post website did show a picture of Tracy Marchiniak Seavers wiping a tear from her eye at the signing ceremony. Mrs. Seavers lost her unborn baby in her final month of pregnancy when she was brutally beaten by her husband.
A number of outlets did quote NRLC Legislative Director, Douglas Johnson, as saying, "If Kerry were president, today would be a veto ceremony, not a signing ceremony."
To its credit the Washington Times put the debate in context by noting that according to various national polls, 80% of Americans think that the murder of a pregnant woman claims two lives. A number of outlets included the fact that family members of victims were present at the signing, in particular the parents of Laci Peterson, who was killed in her last month of pregnancy.
President Bush referred to both Laci and her unborn son, Conner, in his moving remarks delivered just prior to signing the bill. (See stories, pages 1 and 33.) In addition, USA Today ran its story on the front page!
While there is always room for improvement, the coverage, by and large, reflected what we've been trying to say: that there are two victims in such crimes, not one. And at least some outlets mentioned that this is a sentiment widely shared by the American people.
Just as I finished writing this article, I read an Associated Press (AP) story that was most encouraging. "The state Supreme Court strengthened California's fetal-murder law Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant," according to the AP.
This did not surprise me nearly as much as the following characterization: "President Bush signed similar legislation last week to make it a crime to kill a fetus during the commission of a federal offense, and that law does not require knowledge of the pregnancy. Both the federal legislation and California's law exempt the killing of a fetus during an abortion."
"The killing of a fetus during an abortion" - - I'm not sure I ever expected to see those words in print.
There are many other positive signs that I will discuss in subsequent articles for NRL News.
For now, let me just say that CBS's oversight was, fortunately, the exception rather than the rule. All the pro-life movement asks is that the media present our issues in a fair and balanced light. We still have a long way to go but coverage of the signing of UVVA is a hopeful sign.
Laura Echevarria is Director of Media Relations for the National Right to Life Committee.