"Terri's Law" and the MSM

Despite the predictable motive-questioning on the part of some liberals, it appears that the right-thinking leaders in our nation's capitol may yet come to the rescue of Terri Schiavo.

And as usual, the murky allusions to unidentified persons and unattributed memos or statements that we have come to expect from some in the MSM help to slant the reporting of this story, rather than just report the facts. Here's an example from Jim Abrams in an AP story about the Congress and Senate actions:
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., spoke of "the manifestation
of a constitutional crisis" where Congress,
for ideological reasons, was ignoring the separations of
power written into the Constitution.
Republicans distanced themselves from a memo suggesting
GOP lawmakers could use the case to appeal to Christian
conservative voters and to force Democrats into a difficult vote.

Now, were the words "for ideological reasons" something that Barney Franks had said, or was that the biased analysis-masquerading-as-reporting of Jim Abrahms? We don't know. It's not clear. AP doesn't want us to know the difference, or to even see that their might be a difference. They just want us to accept it as fact that the motivation of those in favor of
the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act is ideological. (As opposed to moral, for instance.)

And, what about this "memo suggesting GOP lawmakers could use the case to appeal to Christian conservative voters." ? No mention of the memo's author or distribution. Is it authentic? Could be. But shouldn't the article have said something about who wrote it, who got it, and when? (I know, I know, another pesky reminder from me about the quaintly archaic practice of asking whowhatwhenwhereandhow. I never should have taken those journalism classes in HS and college!)

It turns out, after searching thru five different news sites, that the memo in question was unsigned, according to, of-all-places!; The Washington Post. Good for them, Charles Babington and Mike Allen, who at least included the news that this memo was unsigned, which helps to highlight it's dubious nature.

Still, the inability of these reporters to see the consistency of values that undergird the actions of the Republican leadership on this issue, reveal that "they just don't get it". This is a line from the WAPO story:

Congressional GOP leaders were unapologetic, however, for intervening

in a way likely to raise constitutional separation-of-powers questions and

at odds with traditional Republican calls for a limited role by federal courts.

The action is not at-odds with the traditional Republican defense of LIFE. That's the real crux of the story. And that is the true motivation of the conservatives in this battle, to preserve innocent human life. To value it, to cherish it, to revere it, to defend it.