I have run BlogHer ads on my sidebar for a while now. I really like that I can choose what ads not to run, and I enjoy the featured posts that are listed – I’ve stumbled on some great blogs that way. I like that it’s not just ads but a community as well.
I am also very prolife. I participate somewhat in the boycotts, and yes, I’ve been on the side of the road with signs. I have volunteered with pregnancy centers and engage regularly in online discussions defending the right of babies to be born.
My view can be boiled down to the fact a new, unique human being is created at conception and it is absolutely wrong to end a human life.
As part of my interest in defending life, I subscribe to many blogs as well as LifeNews. Imagine my shock when a recent article on Kathleen Sebelius included this line:
But in an interview on December 21 with Morra Aarons-Mele of the pro-abortion web site BlogHer, Sebelius praised the Senate language that funds abortions and talked about how everyone would be forced to pay for them.
Er, what? WHAT??? BlogHer is a pro-abortion site? I’d never seen anything to indicate such a thing. I tweeted the prolife and prochoice community to see if anyone had any ideas why this would be published:
“Morra Aarons-Mele of the pro-abortion web site BlogHer” does anyone know why Lifesite wrote this? #prolife#prochoice #blogher #tcot
(Please note, I mistweeted. It was not LifeSite, but LifeNews that ran the article.)
BlogHer co-founder Elisa Camahort replied:
@Milehimama Because they didn’t do their fact-checking about BlogHer being an omni-partisan site with posts from both sides of the aisle?
I went to the BlogHer site and did a search; it seems that both sides are represented. It’s run rather like an op-ed page, with writers contributing their views and making an argument for their side of the issue. Yes, there are pro-abortion articles. But there are articles such as Abortion is Barbaric, too.
I wrote to the editor of LifeNews, and the article’s writer replied to me with a clarification. Steven Ertelt wrote back:
The interviewer representing the web site was glad that the health care bill funded abortions
So it seems that it was interviewer, Morra Aarons-Mele, that Mr. Ertelt intended to call pro-abortion, not the entire BlogHer website and all of the contributors. Morra Aarons-Mele writes for several sites, including Huffington Post, BlogHer, and the Guardian and specializes in women and politics.
Mr. Ertelt replied to another of my emails informing me that they are changing the story since I pointed out the error.
I know many of my readers also subscribe to LifeNews, and may have seen the article in question. I want to assure them that I would never, never knowingly post anything on my site that promoted abortion or partner with pro-abortion groups. It seems that BlogHer is not a pro-abortion website, although they do allow the issue to be discussed on their site from many angles.
Alicia (1)
Amanda (1)
Angie @ Bigbearswife (1)
Birdie (1)
christy (1)
Dawn (1)
Grandma Margie (1)
Jennifer (1)
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I really appreciate not only your time to research this, but also to folllow up. Thanks to your time & efforts, this is being corrected. I hope BlogHer appreciates you.
I just wanted, as BlogHer’s political director, to pop my head in and say thanks. We work really hard to make sure a diversity of voices are represented and I really appreciate you digging to see the work we’ve done. As we say on BlogHer..BlogHer is non-partisan, our bloggers aren’t!
Some issues are important enough to take a stance. If your not for me, your against me. I understand completely that they are neither here nor there. They should get off of the fence.
I didn’t know this about BlogHer but knowing it now I can’t continue to support the blogs I read with their adds. I find it difficult to swallow that you are so nonchalant about it.
I don’t think I’m nonchalant. I do think that they function like a newspaper – publishing pros and cons, without taking a side.
I follow Jill Stanek, and she allows pro-abortion arguments and posts in her comments, for example. I read and link to articles distributed by Reuters, even though they publish articles on euthanasia, abortion, the death penalty, etc. without taking sides.
I don’t think it’s possible to have such a black and white view – that is, only doing business with people who are explicitly prolife. My gas company, I’m sure, also provides utilities to Planned Parenthood. I am not aware of any grocery stores in my area that are explicitly pro-life (or pro-abortion, for that matter), and I still intend to buy groceries from these “neutral” non-stance taking companies.
I can’t really weigh in on the issue too much because I am pro-choice. I have never had an abortion, and never would. But I respect other women’s right to choose if they have one or not. I don’t believe in forcing women to stay pregnant that doesn’t want to be pregnant. I think there should be more emphasis on birth control so that all these unwanted pregnancies don’t ever happen to begin with.
Web sites that are “Truly” pro-life take out Satan completely, and have nothing to do with his demons. Because once he’s in, he’s working feverishly on destruction.
Good work, Milehi.
To clarify, I don’t think BlogHer is a prolife website, either. It’s neither, just like many other companies I do business with.
Kalye and Jeanette,
BlogHer is not a content website. It’s an ad network and a web portal. Its subject is “blogs by women,” not “pro-life sites” or “pro-choice sites.”
Does it make sense to do business only with people and companies that are explicitly and actively pro-life? Where would you go grocery shopping then? Kroger and H-E-B aren’t pro-life; they’re pro-grocery. What about your doctor or hairdresser—do they fight for the right to life? We can’t interview everyone we do business with for their personal views!
If a business is explicitly pro-choice and they fund pro-choice causes, then a case for a boycott can be made. But it is possible to not have an explicit stance on a particular issue, and in that case a boycott makes no sense.
Don’t miss BlogHer’s political director’s comment above: BlogHer is officially non-partisan. Their social network aspect allows for conversation, which is an important part of pro-life work.
My guess is they assumed since it is intended for women (hence, BlogHer), it of course must be pro-baby-dismembering.
Wait, except I wouldn’t expect a pro-life site to make that assumption out of hand. Scratch that, sorry.