Abortion

, , , , , , , , ,

Fire at will, in a circle: What does 'pro-life' mean in the context of the COVID-19 era?

, , , , , , , , ,

The assertion of certain conservative politicians that abortion should not be considered “essential” surgery in a time of medical shortages is the latest twist in the ever-active “pro-life” news agenda. But different sorts of life debates lie ahead.

Writers on religion and ethics went to work when Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested on Fox News that it’s OK if senior citizens like himself need to die in this epidemic to ensure that their children and grandchildren have decent economic livelihoods. Radio talker Glenn Beck, a Latter-day Saint, agreed that he’d “rather die than kill the country.”

Even liberals who favor fully free choice for abortion and mercy-killing abhorred suggestions that incomes should count more than the sacredness of human life. Harvard’s Ashish Jha told The Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey that Patrick set up “a false dichotomy” between economics and public health, which is “possibly the dumbest debate we’re having.”

A related topic could be around the corner that journalists should be preparing to cover. In a word: Triage.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition: “The sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors.”

That is, in a crunch who gets life-saving treatment and who doesn’t? In the current crisis, what if intensive care units in a city’s hospitals run short of ventilators necessary to sustain life, as worst-case projections indicate could happen? Should advanced age be a criterion for withholding treatments? This is a nation that next January will inaugurate a president of age 74 (Donald Trump) or 78 (Joe Biden) or 79 (Bernie Sanders), alongside a likely House Speaker who is 80.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

UPDATE: CNN sort of repents on 'fetus' language in story about Senate born-alive bill

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Year after year, debates about abortion continue to raise questions about ethics, politics, morality and science — as well as arguments about language and style in journalism.

The latest, of course, focuses on the legal status of a baby that is born accidentally — perhaps during a botched abortion — as opposed to being delivered intentionally. If you think that is a relatively black-and-white issue, then talk to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. Meanwhile, what role should the beliefs of doctors and parents, secular or religious, play in this discussion?

Some readers may flinch because I used the term “baby” in that previous paragraph. However, in this case we are discussing the status of a human being who has already been born. Meanwhile, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary continues to define “fetus” as:

[Click to the next page for update on this post.]


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Ostling in Mississippi, religion-politics 2020 and video of first GetReligion forum at Ole Miss

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Who knew?

In his long and distinguished career in journalism, GetReligion Patriarch Richard Ostling had never set foot in Mississippi. The Time magazine and Associated Press religion-beat scribe had covered events in 43 states across America, but had never made it into the land of William Faulkner.

Ostling was on hand, Tuesday night, for the first GetReligion-related public forum at the Overby Center at the University of Mississippi. The host, of course, was journalism educator Charles Overby — best known for his 22 years as CEO of the Freedom Forum, a non-partisan foundation focusing on the press, religious freedom and the First Amendment. Also, this was my first visit to the center as a senior fellow, after GetReligion’s move there at the start of 2020.

The weather was sketchy, but the crowd came loaded with great questions.

Our topic was the role that religion is playing, early on, in the 2020 race for the White House. I was expecting that to stir up lots of conversation about (all together now) the 81% of white evangelicals who just love Donald Trump. This forum was being held deep in the Bible Belt, of course. I also expected questions about liberal Democrats attempting to build bridges to voters in black churches.

But who knew?

The topic that dominated the night — starting with Ostling’s first salvo — was the role of centrist and pew-frequenting Catholics in the crucial swing states that will decide this year’s election. We are talking, of course, about the Rust Belt Midwest and Florida. (Click here for GetReligion’s typology on the four basic kinds of “Catholic voters.”)

Click on other to the next page of this post to see the video of the forum.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Klobuchar making an Obama-esque play to win Democrats in pews?

, , , , , , , , ,

The following New York Times headline perfect states the political chattering-class hot take of the week: “How Amy Klobuchar Pulled Off the Big Surprise of the New Hampshire Primary.”

Since this is GetReligion, let’s do a big of searching in this article (as well as reading it, of course).

First, let’s search for the word “religion.” Bzzz. Nothing there.

Let’s search for “church.” Bzzz. Zero.

Let’s search for “worship.” Bzzz. Zip.

In light of recent headlines, let’s search for the word “abortion.” Bzzz. Nada.

So what was the big idea in this article from America’s most influential newsroom? This appears to be the thesis:

Ms. Klobuchar’s distinct and deliberate appeal to the centrist spirit caught fire with some late-breaking activists.

Now, what precisely was the CONTENT of this “centrist spirit” that helped create the surprising surge for Klobuchar? That was the topic of discussion during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. You can click here to tune that in or, as always, head over to iTunes.

The Washington Post noticed something interesting in the exit poll numbers and mentioned it, way down in the body of its report. As you would expect, Sen. Bernie Sanders did very well with secular voters. He was +27 with “very liberal” voters and +8 with those who “never attend religious services.”

Klobuchar, on the other hand:

Senior citizens boosted Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), with about a third backing her. The Minnesota senator also received strong support among weekly worship attenders and moderates. She received less support from strong liberals, lower-income voters and those under age 30.

This caught the attention of Michael Wear, who once served as one of President Barack Obama’s “ambassadors to the faith community.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Do Catholic dissenters have a constitutional right to Holy Communion?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

They are among the most famous words in journalism, combining to form a phrase that — back in the old wire-service days — defined the craft of hard-news reporting and writing.

All together now: These words are “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why” and “how.”

That’s the old approach to writing a good hard-news lede (especially on deadline). This formula can be a big clunky, at times, but it does force reporters to think through their material and identify the most important elements of a story.

So, with that in mind, try to identify the various pieces of the W5H puzzle when reading the Providence Journal lede that dominated our discussions during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The key in this case is to focus on the “why” factor.

The Rev. Richard Bucci, pastor of the West Warwick church where a lawmaker’s sister has said she was sexually molested repeatedly as a child by a now-dead priest, marked the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by issuing a flier listing the names of every Rhode Island legislator who voted last year to enshrine the right to an abortion in state law.

So why did this Catholic pastor send out this flier? That’s pretty obvious: He did so in response to a piece of abortion-rights legislation in Rhode Island.

Now, why did the individual legislator mentioned in this train wreck of a lede believe that Father Bucci had taken this action?

It would appear that Rep. Carol McEntee thought this action also had something to do with the Catholic church — or this particular parish — hiding clergy who abuse children. Later, readers also learn that Bucci and McEntee had previously clashed over her right to give a eulogy in the middle of a Catholic funeral.

But what is the main story here? Is this a story about the new abortion law and Bucci’s list of legislators or is it a story about Rep. McEntee and this priest? Does the story offer evidence that proves that McEntee is onto something, with this claim that there are two “why” factors at play in this case? (Hold that thought.)


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Journalism train wreck: Catholic scholar pours acid on news story about abortion and politics

, , , , , , ,

In the summer of 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a confidential letter addressing one of the most controversial doctrinal issues involving Catholic faith and public life.

We are talking, of course, about whether it is wise for Catholic clergy to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who consistently and openly reject centuries of church teachings on abortion, marriage and other hot-button doctrinal issues.

On one side of this fight are Catholics who say priests should take this stance in an attempt to encourage politicians to confess their sins and receive forgiveness. The goal is to save souls.

On the other side are Catholic progressives (for the most part) who say priests almost always use this tactic to punish Democrats who clash with the church on abortion, while declining to punish Republicans (for the most part) who clash with the church on issues such as the death penalty, immigration, etc., etc.

This is the tip of a giant iceberg, of course, and the cardinal who would then become Pope Benedict XVI has made other statements on this issue. It didn’t help that, at a key moment, then Cardinal Theodore McCarrick blurred (that’s putting things mildly) some of the details of Ratzinger’s 2004 letter.

Why bring this up? All of this is crucial background material for a spectacular online clash between a famous Catholic scholar and editors at The Providence Journal about a truly bizarre story (“Priest: No Communion for R.I. lawmakers who supported abortion law”).

Where to begin? First, let’s flash back to a 2007 National Catholic Reporter story about that Ratzinger letter — “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.”

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” Ratzinger wrote.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Election-year coverage should focus on Catholics as being ‘politically homeless'

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We’re a month into 2020 and, as expected, it is a year where the presidential election will dominate news coverage. In dominating the news, politics is also — like it or not — the prism in which journalists look at most other issues in society. That includes news about entertainment, economics, sports and, yes, religion.

A few things happened in January that have set the mood for the Iowa caucuses that took place Monday, the official start of the primary season. One of the biggest took place about 1,000 miles east of Des Moines, in Philadelphia, when Archbishop Charles Chaput was replaced by Nelson Perez.

The decision by Pope Francis, although ultimately not a surprising one, was largely portrayed in the mainstream press as the replacement of a conservative cleric with a largely progressive one. In other words, discussions of doctrine were framed and discussed in political terms.

This is how The New York Times framed the decision:

Archbishop Chaput, who was appointed to the position by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011, has long been known as a theological and political conservative, often at odds with Francis’ mission to move beyond the culture wars dominated by sexual politics.

Francis recently acknowledged that a good deal of the opposition to his pontificate emanated from the United States, telling a reporter who handed him a book exploring the well-financed and media-backed American effort to undermine his agenda that it was “an honor that the Americans attack me.”

Archbishop Chaput’s departure was expected, as he had offered his resignation to Pope Francis when he turned 75 in September. Church law requires every bishop to tender his resignation at that age, but the pope can choose not to accept it, often allowing prelates to remain in office for several more years.

In this case, the pope did not wait long before saying yes.

A theological and political conservative. Really?

Theological absolutely if you mean Chaput upheld the teachings of the church. The accuracy of this political judgement is up for debate. Is a Catholic a political “conservative” if he backs Catholic doctrines on the death penalty, abortion, marriage, immigration and other hot-button issues?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Trump and Buttigieg try to reach out to voters who -- to one degree or another -- are pro-life

, , , , , , , ,
Trump and Buttigieg try to reach out to voters who -- to one degree or another -- are pro-life

President Donald Trump and Democrat Pete Buttigieg recently offered radically different stands on abortion, as both attempted to reach out to Catholic and evangelical swing voters trapped between their parties.

Trump made history as the first president to speak in person at the national March for Life, which marks the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. 

"All of us here understand an eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God. Together, we must protect, cherish and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life," said Trump, who for years backed abortion rights and Planned Parenthood. He insists that his views have evolved, like those of Republican hero Ronald Reagan.

"When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God's creation. ... When we watch a child grow, we see the splendor that radiates from each human soul. One life changes the world," he said.

While commentators stressed that Trump attended the march to please his conservative evangelical base, this massive event in Washington, D.C., draws a complex crowd that is hard to label. It includes, for example, Catholics and evangelicals from groups that have been critical of Trump's personal life and ethics, as well as his stands on immigration, the death penalty and related issues.

Videos of this year's march showed many signs praising the president, but also signs critical of his bruising brand of politics.     

A Facebook post by a Catholic priest -- Father Jeffrey Dauses of the Diocese of Baltimore -- captured this tension. Telling pro-lifers to "wake up," Dauses attacked what he called Trump's "callous disregard for the poor, for immigrants and refugees, for women. … This man is not pro-life. He is pro-himself."

Meanwhile, Buttigieg -- an openly gay Episcopalian -- did something even more daring when he appeared at a Fox News town hall in Iowa.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Was Trump preaching to an evangelical choir at the March for Life?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

To start things off, please get yourself a map that includes Washington, D.C., and nearby states. If you have lived in that region, just pull one up in your mind’s eye.

Now, draw an imaginary 300-mile circle — or perhaps one bigger than that — around the Beltway kingdom.

If you were the principal of a Christian middle-school or high-school, how many hours would you allow students and some faculty members or parents to ride on a school bus to attend the March for Life that marks the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision? What if they were on a rented touring bus, with better seats and (most importantly) a better safety rating?

Would you let them drive for five hours to the march? How about eight? Now, to understand the topic discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), ask these questions:

(1) What are the key states touched by that big circle around D.C.? Obviously there’s Maryland and Pennsylvania and Virginia. But Ohio isn’t out of the question, is it?

(2) Thinking about religious schools and institutions, would there be more Catholic schools in this circle or evangelical Protestant? Think about the size of the Catholic populations in several of these states.

(3) Which of these states have significant clout in American politics, especially in White House races? Obviously, Ohio (think of all that history) and Pennsylvania would be at the top of that list.

So now, picture the massive crowds at the March for Life. You can understand why, year after year, it is dominated by waves of buses containing Catholic students of all ages — even though it is true that evangelical Protestants are now active in the Right to Life Movement. If you’ve attended or covered a March for Life, you know — to be blunt — that this is not an event dominated by white evangelicals.

Let’s add one more lens, as we look at media coverage of the 2020 march. It’s a political lens.

Name the key states that, in 2016, elected Trump to the presidency. Do white evangelicals dominate those states — the Rust Belt (especially Ohio and Pennsylvania) and Florida — or do Catholics of varying degrees of religious practice?

So here is my question: Was the main reason that advisors sent Trump to the March for Life to preach to his white evangelical Protestant base?


Please respect our Commenting Policy