Facebook is being accused of liberal bias (again) for censoring content belonging to anti-abortion group LiveAction.
Facebook described LiveAction’s claim that abortion is never medically necessary as “false” and “misleading” and posted a “fact-check” explaining why early delivery is not a suitable alternative to abortion in emergency cases.
“Preserving both the life of the mother and child by inducing early delivery [as LiveAction claims] is only possible if the fetus’ gestational age is advanced enough that it stands a chance of survival outside the womb,” Facebook said in a statement. “As this is not always the case, early delivery is not always a suitable alternative to abortion.”
Not surprisingly, both of the OB-GYNs Facebook tapped in writing its statement are pro-choice advocates.
“These fact-checkers need to be fact-checked,” argues Dr. Donna Harrison, head of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists. “They are in error to claim that elective abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. They did not cite even one example where an abortion, the intentional killing of a living child in utero, would be superior to delivering that child.”
LiveAction admits that early delivery does not always save the life of the unborn, but at least it gives the child a “fighting chance.”
Facebook’s attack on LiveAction follows similar moves by Twitter and YouTube, which won’t let the group run paid ads on their platforms. In June, Pinterest added LiveAction to a list of blocked pornography websites before banning it completely.
“This is clear evidence of bias and discrimination,” argues LiveAction President Lila Rose, who in July gave a speech at the White House about Big Tech’s blatant attempts to censor pro-life and conservative information.
That same month, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg donated $1 million to Planned Parenthood.
Editor’s note: It’s time to make a move on censorship. Platforms like Facebook should not be allowed to censor issues based on their own politics. One might argue that free speech does not apply on a private platform. But when that platform purports to be non-political, free speech MUST be applied.