We interrupt the Left’s latest unhinged rant about the Koch Brothers (in which socialist Bernie Sanders somehow tries to pin the VA hospital scandal on them!) to bring word that billionaire Warren Buffett gave $1.2 billion to various components of the abortion industry over the past decade.
I guess all that compulsory taxpayer support wasn’t good enough. Which is strange, because we’re constantly told abortion-on-demand is the indispensable sacrament of American womanhood. If it’s so beloved, why does it need a billion dollars from Warren Buffett?
Writing at Fox News, Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center notes that Buffet’s donations would cover about two years’ worth of abortions in the United States – or, stretched over 11 years, you could say he’s given enough money to fund almost twenty percent of abortions in America. But of course, that’s not how this industry works; it’s a vast sea of money that surges into all sorts of places beyond the clinics where procedures are performed.
Gainor takes some pains to connect Buffet’s support for abortion with the monstrous Kermit Gosnell, which is pretty harsh – say what you will about Buffet’s support for abortion, but he forked over most of that money before he would have heard Gosnell’s name, and if he gets most of his news from the mainstream media, it’s possible he still hasn’t. Which is where the comparison between the two finds some valid intellectual ground, because what they have in common is that both Gosnell’s atrocities and Buffet’s donations are significantly under-reported:
Since 2001, there has only been one tangential mention of Buffett???s support for abortion on the broadcast TV network morning and evening news shows. It wasn???t even really about Buffett. It was the NBC ???Nightly News??? obituary for his wife and it included her support for Planned Parenthood. That???s out of at least 545 appearances or mentions of the Berkshire Hathaway chairman and CEO.
Nowhere did the media explain how Buffett has given $289,811,421 to Planned Parenthood since 2001. Buffett was never mentioned as a top donor when Live Action embarrassed Planned Parenthood with two videos of staffers assisting a Live Action actor with a possible sex selection abortion.
That wasn???t the only embarrassment for the abortion provider. In early 2011, Live Action???s Lila Rose and Project Veritas??? James O???Keefe set up a sting where Rose pretended to be a 15-year-old prostitute and O???Keefe her pimp. Planned Parenthood workers were quite willing to help provide underage abortions.
No mention of Buffett???s billions then either.
Instead we get grandfatherly Buffett, tax-hiking Buffett, investor Buffett. As a reliable liberal businessman, journalists turn to him as a source for almost any commentary
It???s easy to understand. If you give $1,000 to a ballot initiative to defend traditional marriage, that???s controversial. If you give $1.25 billion to promote abortion, journalists, who are wildly pro-abortion, don???t dare see any controversy.
That last bit is a swipe at the treatment of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s long-ago donation in support of California’s Prop 8, which enjoyed considerably more public support than abortion-on-demand does. Between the Gosnell horror and the sting operations Gainor mentions, it’s been tough sledding for abortion extremists lately… or it would be, if the mainstream press bothered reporting these stories.
In the real world, late-term abortions face overwhelming public opposition, and there is great concern about the lax safety standards at many of these clinics – the abortion industry is one of the very few industries in America that liberals think should be lightly regulated. Overall, the abortion issue is split right down the middle in popular opinion, with pro-lifers making remarkable gains over the past few years – all the more remarkable because the might of the dominant political and media culture is almost completely turned against them. But inside the elite media bubble, there’s nothing “controversial” about even the most extreme abortion stance… or the heavy financial intervention of billionaires.
So tell me again, Koch obsessives: are we supposed to be concerned about rich guys using their money to influence politics and culture, or not?