By placing itself in the middle of the issue, YouTube seems intent on chilling debate, acting as though a deeply controversial issue has already been settled by ‘authoritative sources’ that define the killing of an unborn child as a ‘simple and common health-care procedure.’

By Ashley Sadler
Article Source

Last week, social media giant YouTube declared it was taking action against so-called “misinformation” regarding abortion, promising to crack down on content that “promotes false claims about abortion safety” and add “context” labels from “authoritative sources.”

The move seems to suggest that the Big Tech company is angling to use the same sort of spurious “context” and “fact-checking” labels and censorship tactics employed during the COVID-19 pandemic to begin directing the political discourse on abortion.

“Starting today and ramping up over the next few weeks, we will remove content that provides instructions for unsafe abortion methods or promotes false claims about abortion safety under our medical misinformation policies,” YouTube said in a July 21 statement.

While the first part of the statement could help shut down content advising dangerous at-home abortions, the second has immediately raised concerns that YouTube could target pro-life content the same way it targeted videos opposing government-directed COVID-19 measures like masking, social distancing, and experimental injections.

According to YouTube’s “misinformation” policy, medical content “that contradicts local health authorities’ or [World Health Organization] guidance on certain safe medical practices” will not be allowed on the site.

That’s bad news for pro-life content creators, since the WHO claims that “Induced abortion is a simple and common health-care procedure” that “is safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills.”

Likewise, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) blandly defines a “legal induced abortion” as “an intervention performed by a licensed clinician (e.g., a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) within the limits of state regulations, that is intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth.”

All that to say: The WHO and CDC clearly don’t think a baby is a baby. What will become of pro-life YouTube content that contradicts them?

YouTube explained in the Thursday announcement that they “rely on published guidance from health authorities,” and will “prioritize connecting people to content from authoritative sources on health topics.”

To do this, YouTube said they are “launching an information panel that provides viewers with context and information from local and global health authorities under abortion-related videos and above relevant search results.”

But what counts as an “authoritative source?” The government, of course.

Just as with COVID, YouTube users who look up content related to abortion will be immediately presented with definitions and resources from unaccountable bureaucratic government agencies, which present information from a decidedly pro-abortion slant.

Look up any abortion-related content on YouTube and you will now see a new “context” label pop up regarding “abortion health information.”

“An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy,” the context label states, quoting a cold, clinical definition of abortion provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

“[Abortion] uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus,” the statement continues. “The procedure is done by a licensed healthcare professional.”

The provided definition, in keeping with standard pro-abortion clap-trap, appears to casually assume that an “embryo” or “fetus” is a non- or subhuman life-form unworthy of a second thought. Likewise, the word “remove” is a carefully chosen replacement for more descriptive terms like “kill,” “dismember,” or “poison.” Meanwhile, calmly calling abortion a “procedure,” neatly ensures that the brutal act is regarded as a mere medical intervention, just like the removal of an appendix.

These “authoritative” definitions and labels aren’t new for YouTube, though they haven’t popped up on abortion-related content before.

Previously, YouTube had put “context” labels on videos that contradicted the established narrative on COVID-19, subtly suggesting that whatever Dr. Scott Atlas, Dr. Robert Malone, or Dr. Vladimir Zalenko might say, the CDC has the ultimate answer.

“COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and free,” the CDC declares on the resource page to which YouTube links its users. The government agency urges readers to “Get answers to frequently asked questions and bust myths about vaccines.”

Thus, although the CDC has pushed misleading data, under-reported adverse events related to the COVID shots, and even redefined the word “vaccine” to comport with the mRNA shots’ failing efficacy, YouTube continues to hold the agency up as the ultimate source of information on all things COVID.

Now, just like they did with the coronavirus, YouTube is attempting to consolidate opinion and shut down debate regarding abortion, claiming to provide an authoritative, unbiased definition of a highly controversial practice by simply citing morally-evasive word salads whipped up by government agencies.

By placing itself in the middle of the issue, YouTube seems intent on chilling debate, acting as though a deeply controversial issue has already been settled by “authoritative sources” that define the killing of an unborn child as a “simple and common health-care procedure.”