Sensenbrenner Statement on DOJ Investigation of Abortion Giant
"It is heartbreaking and disgusting that anyone would profit from sale of innocent unborn human body parts."
Washington, D.C.—Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) offered the following statement after the Department of Justice confirmed its ongoing investigation into the alleged sale of human fetal tissue by a major abortion provider in America:
“It is heartbreaking and disgusting that anyone would profit from sale of innocent unborn human body parts. The Department of Justice is right to open this investigation at the referral of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives.”
In February, Congressman Sensenbrenner introduced the Safe RESEARCH Act (H.R. 1203) to prohibit the sale of fetal tissue acquired by abortion. Specifically, the Safe RESEARCH Act amends Section 498A of the Public Health Act to only permit human fetal tissue research to be conducted with tissue obtained as a result of a stillbirth or ectopic pregnancy.
The text of the Safe RESEARCH Act is available here.
NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. While it is believed to be reliable, Urban Milwaukee does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Mentioned in This Press Release
Recent Press Releases by U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner
Abortion giant? Just trying to be provocative, shame on you! Perhaps you should investigate medical service cuts and education cuts that effect more of your constituents than towing the single issue voter line?
I am annoyed and disappointed with Urban Milwaukee for using this headline. Planned Parenthood an “abortion giant”???This non profit agency provides a variety of health care services, such as cancer breast screening, to those who may have no other option. Yes, there are abortions (freedom of choice, right?), but PP is much more than that. Please revise your offensive headline.
@Kathy D. This is a press release which was published in our press release archive as provided by Sensenbrenner’s office.
Dave–Are you required to publish a news release exactly as provided by the submitter? I think most readers would assume that’s your wording in the headline. How about “Sensenbrenner’s Statement on DOJ Investigation of Planned Parenthood”? “Abortion Giant” is pretty provocative.
How about DOJ Investigates Human Lego parts Factory? Even better DOJ investigates, Body part Harvesters for Blood money/
Urban Milwaukee would do itself and its readers a favor by making press releases stand out in some way from UM-published pieces. (I would add that this is a problem with most media. The average reader or viewer often does not notice any distinction between a news piece and an opinion piece, let alone a press release.)
@EricS It says Press Release right at the top of the post, and the post is listed in the “Press Release” section of the site and emails. Maybe we should bold it on the post or something but it’s there. It’s also in the url, and the post contains these two sections as well: “Mentioned in This Press Release” and “Recent Press Releases by U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner.” But time allowing I’ll look into making the title a little more visible.
@Kathy D I won’t say required but just like wispolitics.com (https://www.wispolitics.com/2017/u-s-rep-sensenbrenner-statement-on-doj-investigation-of-abortion-giant/) when it comes to political releases we are archiving these so it’s important to capture the release accurately. And from my point of view, seeing the release as Sensenbrenner’s office put it out is important information.
So if someone, a public official, perhaps, sent you a news release with a swear word or obscenity in the headline or story, would you feel obligated to publish it as is? Calling Planned Parenthood an abortion giant is offensive.
@Dave Reid – I should have been clearer. I realize press releases are marked as such but not necessarily in a way that stands out and is noticeable to a nontrivial number of readers. The “PRESS RELEASE” heading at the top of the page is easily overlooked with the far larger and bold title below it. And I can’t imagine many readers pay much attention to the url.
(And, I’ll repeat – I don’t say this to single out UM – I think most media outlets could do a far better job of distinguishing between news pieces and opinion pieces/press releases.)
@EricS That sounds like something we can work on improving. I’ll put it on the list.
Kathy, I think your problem is with Sensenbrenner.
I would be more concerned if UM or other media outlets were to start altering or censoring the press releases.
I do agree that calling PP an ‘abortion giant’ is wrong and is cheap sensationalism by the author. This statement serves as an artifact of the current world we live in, right or wrong. Censorship won’t solve the issues at hand.
Does UM feel obligated to publish every news release submitted and without any revision? What about those that are unprofessional or poorly written? Wouldn’t you talk to the PR person and suggest revisions so that the release is acceptable and effective? Perhaps your editor could have worked with the senator’s staff to develop a better headline. Just my opinion, of course. 🙂
@Kathy D No, but we publish as many as we physically can in a given day that are relevant to our readers as this captures what our politicians are saying and doing.
Final thought: I think your readers would tend to blame UM for offensive language in a news release because it appears on your website with your logo, etc. A news article at least has the reporter’s byline on it. Thanks for your responses.