ABCNews.com on Monday republished, then removed an article from Mother Jones magazine on Republicans "redefining rape." The piece briefly appeared on the network's website with no explanation that it was by the associate editor of the liberal magazine.

The article, by Nick Baumann, featured both the incendiary headline from Mother Jones, "The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape" and the nasty sub-headline: "Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding."

Unlike CBSNews.com, which has an opinion and analysis section, this article received no label. One could easily assume Baumann was simply an ABC News journalist.

In the piece, Baumann, attacked the "anti-choice" Republicans:

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

The only experts cited in the article are those attacking congressional Republicans, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. That would be fine, of course, had the article not been featured on ABCNews.com (or had it been identified as commentary).

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez created a screenshot of the (now gone) ABC News article and the Mother Jones original:

— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

It would appear that if it weren't for the center-right blogosphere, Fox News, a few business dailies, a few conservative pundits, and talk radio, very few people would know about the hundreds of waivers granted by the Obama administration to companies, unions, not-for-profits, states, and other entities wishing to be spared the burdens of complying with Obamacare for at least another year.

The latest count as of last Wednesday's Health and Human Services Department press release was 732, including four states: Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, and Tennessee.

That the waiver situation is not more widely known is largely due to the fact that the establishment press has shown almost no interest in it.

The Associated Press has had five days to cover HHS's latest release. It is news, as HHS's release was, as far as I can tell, the first indication that "Over 500 waivers were granted in December." Here is the result of a search on "health waivers" (not in quotes) at the AP's main web site at about 10:00 this morning:

In other words, there's nothing relevant.

Related searches on "exemptions," "waiver," and "waivers" return nothing relevant to HHS's release.

At the New York Times, a search on "health care waivers"  turns up one relevant item from Friday dealing with how the states are addressing ballooning Medicaid costs, including in certain instances asking for exemptions from certain ObamaCare provisions. But the last time the Times addressed waivers for non-governmental entities was back in early December, and the focus then ("Opponents Take Aim at Limited Health Plans" — note the gun allusion) was on how limited coverage plans like one offered by McDonald's, which received an Obamacare waiver, are, in West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller's opinion, "worse than nothing because of the false expectations and the false hope." The Times's Reed Abelson opened his story by writing: "Maybe something isn’t always better than nothing." Less specific Times searches surfaced no additional recent pertinent items.

From what I can tell, the Times has not noted the roster of Obamacare-backing unions which have obtained waivers. JIm Angle at Fox News has noted the situation:

Hundreds of entities from banks to church groups to school districts are saying they can't live up to the law.

 

The group also includes dozens of unions chapters, most of which supported passage of the bill — from electrical workers to Teamsters to the Service Employees Union, which organizes low wage workers.

 

Even a union representing NY Firefighters asked for a waiver, as well as several states whose own health care requirements were lower than the new federal law.

Michelle Malkin recited a roster in her latest syndicated column:

Most noteworthy: One-fourth of all the waivers (182) so far have gone to Big Labor groups across the country.

 

The Teamsters Union, which hailed Obama last March for “enacting historic health care reform, providing health insurance to millions of Americans who don’t have it and controlling costs for millions more who do,” obtained waivers for 17 different locals.

 

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which celebrated the passage of Obamacare as “an achievement that will rank among the highest in our national experience,” secured waivers for 28 different affiliates.

 

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers — which exulted after the health care law’s passage that “finally, affordable and comprehensive health care coverage will be available for millions of working Americans” — saw 8 of its affiliates win shelter from the Obamacare wrecking ball.

 

The Communications Workers of America, which sent its workers to lobby for Obamacare on Capitol Hill as part of the left-wing billionaire George Soros-funded Health Care for America Now front group, snagged a waiver that will spare a hefty 19,000 of its members from the onerous federal mandate.

 

And the Service Employees International Union, which poured $60 million into Democrat/Obama coffers in 2008 and millions more into the Astroturf campaign for the federal health care takeover, added four new affiliates to the waiver list …

A Friday Investors Business Daily editorial ("Where's Our Waiver?") makes lots of good points, including this one:

ObamaCare is in effect repealing itself, waiver by waiver. If it's so great, the Senate should vote on its repeal without fear.

It should not be forgotten that the administration didn't have to grant a single waiver if it didn't feel like it. My recall of the law is that there isn't even a requirement that HHS be consistent in its waiver-granting criteria. If repeal doesn't occur soon and statist health care proponents seen an opening in the political climate, the waivers may stop a year or two before the January 1, 2014 full implementation date — either selectively or en masse.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

While it is quite clear that the officials of WikiLeaks are leftists, there are more conservative media outlets picking through its scraps. The Telegraph in the U.K. has found a scandal: that the British government  manipulated the Libyans into releasing a mass-murdering terrorist on his cancer diagnosis:

A Foreign Office minister sent Libyan officials detailed legal advice on how to use Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s cancer diagnosis to ensure he was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.

The Duke of York [Prince Andrew]  is also said to have played a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging the terrorist’s release.

The Libyans closely followed the advice which led to the controversial release of Megrahi – who was convicted of the murder of 270 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 – within months of the Foreign Office’s secret intervention.

The disclosure seriously undermines British Government claims that is was not complicit in the release of al-Megrahi, and that the decision to free the convicted terrorist was taken by the Scottish Executive alone.

It will also lead to renewed pressure from senior American politicians on David Cameron to release all internal documents detailing Britain’s role in the scandal. Last summer, the Prime Minister pledged to release the relevant information – but the publication has yet to occur sparking fears that a cover-up may have been ordered.  

Will American media outlets that have defended WikiLeaks — like The New York Times, most prominently — cover this story, or ignore it?  Or are they only interested in leaked documents that support their own ideological views? The commercial benefits of Britain trading with Libya apparently played a major role in the Megrahi plotting, and they seemed to have no fear of domestic outrage of closely working with Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi:

After Megrahi was released in August 2009, another American document records Gaddafi’s comments – which suggest that Prince Andrew, the UK’s trade envoy, may have played a role.

The document records: “He [Gaddafi] went on to thank his 'friend Brown’, the British Prime Minister, his government, Queen Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who 'against all odds encouraged this brave decision’. [Gaddafi] noted that the UK efforts would positively affect 'exchange’ between the two countries.

When al-Megrahi was finally released, it also emerged that Gordon Brown instructed the British ambassador to hand deliver a note to Gaddafi. The letter was ostensibly to ask the Libyan leader not to lionise the released terrorist but the delivery of the letter also presented British officials with the opportunity for a rare private meeting with Gaddafi. The leader usually only sees very senior foreign politicians and dignitaries.

The disclosure of the secret Foreign Office advice to the Libyans is set to spark renewed calls for the British government to appear before the US Senate to justify its role in the bomber’s release.  

The Telegraph also raised the speculation that Megrahi was to receive chemotherapy in Scotland instead of being released as a dead man walking, which the Scottish government denies. Megrahi was released with "three months to live" about 16 months ago.

Brent Bozell's latest culture column reported on how Entertainment Weekly offered a very one-sided cover story cheering for gay teen characters on TV to "enlighten" the culture about the need for "tolerance" (defined as the notion that no one should ever tolerate the idea that homosexuality is a sin, like centuries-old religions with billions of adherents do.)

In a blog post, the cover story's writer, Jennifer Armstrong, kept pushing the notion that gay "visibility" advocates need to cross the "final complicated frontier" of TV shows watched by grade-schoolers on the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon:

On sitcoms like Hannah Montana and iCarly, characters develop occasional crushes, but a mere peck is cause for audience oohing and aahing. But, as AfterElton.com’s Michael Jensen pointed out in a recent post, “Obviously, Disney deals with the sexuality of its teen characters all the time as they have crushes, flirt, and go on dates.” Why not have a same-sex crush, flirtation, or date?

Sources at the networks said it still felt a little “inappropriate” for their light-hearted programming given the complications and drama involved in the life of a teen who’s just coming out, while Disney issued the following statement: “We recognize our responsibility to present age-appropriate programming for millions of kids age 6-14 around the world, and we aim to tell great stories with an array of relatable characters and themes that address the needs and aspirations of our young viewers, augment Disney Channel’s themes of communication and optimism, and fulfill our brand promise to encourage kids to ‘express yourself,’ ‘believe in yourself,’ and ‘celebrate your family.’”

Fair enough. But what of the more flamboyant characters whom viewers have sometimes interpreted as possibly gay, as one fan pointed out to AfterElton.com about Shake It Up!‘s Gunther? “We leave it up to our audience to interpret who these characters are and how they relate to them,” Disney Channel President Gary Marsh told the site. “It’s great that this child has interpreted Gunther this way and that it speaks to him in a way that makes sense for his life. And that’s what we’re trying to do — create a diverse cross section of characters on television that kids can have different access points and entry points to connect with.”

These networks — to which parents pay particularly close attention — may be the final, complicated frontier for gay teen representation on TV.

But in the AfterElton interview, the aforementioned Michael Jensen just kept angrily pressuring the Disney Channel boss Gary Marsh to surrender to the demands of the gay left, that unless you push sexual-orientation issues on six year olds, you're "treating gay people as second class." This isn't really so much an interview as an exercise in intimidation:

JENSEN:  You and I first spoke three years ago about whether the Disney Channel might ever include a gay character on one of your shows. I'm wondering if things might have changed since then. You currently have a show called Shake It Up! and a fourteen-year-old fan of the show brought it to our attention saying that he interpreted the character of Gunther as gay, even though he didn't think the show would ever say the character was gay. So I'm wondering, given Disney's history of being racially diverse and so influential in the lives of young kids, is Disney ever going to be including gay characters in age appropriate ways?

MARSH: What I said before really remains true. We leave it up to our audience to interpret who these characters are and how they relate to them. It's great that this child has interpreted Gunther this way and that it speaks to him in a way that makes sense for his life. And that's what we're trying to do — create a diverse cross section of characters on television that kids can have different access points and entry points to connect with.

JENSEN: But why is a gay character something a gay teen should have to interpret? Why can't there be an age appropriate way to specifically include a gay character? On Shake It Up! two of the straight characters go out on a date. Why does the gay kid have to settle for interpreting [Gunther is gay]? You wouldn't say that to a black kid. 

Gunther on the new show Shake It Up is supercilious, vaguely European, a dancer, and wears some sparkles. That means Mr. After Elton wants him to offer a little eleven-minute leftist lecture from the GLAAD Training Handbook to the six-year-olds in the audience. It continued:

MARSH: In fact, there's all sorts of range. That's a great example. We are colorblind. We don't articulate different parts for different ethnicities. In fact that happens all the time.

JENSEN: Yes, but it is clear when a character is black. 

MARSH: Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

JENSEN: Okay then, multiethnic. Clearly when you watch the show, the shows are multiethnic. But it's not clear that the show includes gay characters because kids are having to "interpret" them that way. I don't understand why the gay kids are being told they are second class citizens and have to settle with "interpreting" that some characters are gay like them. 

MARSH:  I don't know that that has a thing to do with being second class.

JENSEN: Are you saying at some point we might see a gay kid going on a date?

MARSH: I'm saying I don't know where the series or the Disney Channel or the world might evolve to in that regard. But I don't see it has some sort of second class…

JENSEN: So the fact that Disney has never included an out gay character isn't somehow treating gay people as second class?

MARSH: As you said, according to you, this child is interpreting this person has a gay character. And that seems to work fine for him.

JENSEN: No, he's settling for it.

MARSH: I don't know what that means.

JENSEN: It means he has to say, "Well, this is the best I can hope for. This character seems gay and I can interpret him that way, and that's what I have to settle for."

MARSH: I think that seems to be working for him.

JENSEN: [he inserts into the transcript "long pause"]: Okay, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I just don't understand how you can say to a young gay viewer "Your orientation is something we're so … leery of that we're not going to make it clear." That really seems fair and healthy? You know, we've got all these gay kids out there and this year we've some of them are clearly struggling and being bullied and that led to the "It Gets Better" campaign to say to gay kids, "We know you get get treated unfairly in school, we know you get picked on in school, we know people don't understand. And yet here is the biggest entertainment company in the world [for kids] basically saying "Well, we're not going to do anything to make you feel better about your place in the world and help educate people." And I'm just really surprised.

Gay activists are always shocked that they haven't won over the entire religious world in two seconds. They demand surrender, and are shocked when someone sticks to their holy book or holy God — or in this case, when a corporate executive just won't make any promises to start invading the "final frontier" in the gay culture revolution.