Abortion

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

Creative ways to cover abortion stories near Roe v. Wade anniversary: Here's a few ideas

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Creative ways to cover abortion stories near Roe v. Wade anniversary: Here's a few ideas

I always get frustrated with the lack of original thought when it comes to covering abortion stories connected to the anniversaries of Roe v. Wade. Last week’s reporting for the 48th anniversary was no exception.

There was the predictable updates (which I am not criticizing), such as President Joe Biden’s intent to codify Roe v. Wade, which the Catholic-news website Crux covered here. And Fox News ran a piece about a restrictive abortion law passed by the state of Tennessee last summer , and how that has become ensnared in the courts.

Now I know that, with the inauguration on the same week and all, there wasn’t a lot of energy out there to come up with Roe v. Wade stories that covered new ground. But the stories are out there, folks. It’s just that many of those in the media don’t feel like ferreting them out. Let’s suggest a few:

(1) Since Black Lives Matter has been a major newsmaker this past year, how about a revisit on black abortion rates? About a year ago, the Arizona Capital Times ran this opinion piece by a black member of the state house of representatives. I’ll pull out one paragraph:

The impacts on our black communities are hard to fathom. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which generally supports abortion, in 2011 360,000 black babies were aborted. CDC statistics for 2011 show that 287,072 black deaths occurred from all other causes excluding abortion. By these numbers, abortion is the leading cause of death among blacks.

Shouldn’t there be more reporting on something that kills more black children than police brutality ever has? Can’t say I’ve seen a whole lot. This story is also linked to debates in the Black church about politics, social issues, family, etc.

(2) Personality profiles. The pro-choicers get loads of them, such as this 2018 Washington Post piece about a black gynecologist who went from being anti-abortion to pro-abortion rights — and why. This was Willie Parker. The Atlantic, however, went more creative and much deeper in a feature about a war in the abortion movement where Parker is being accused of sexual assault, and the nasty infighting that’s resulted from that. Insider politics is always an interesting read, must say.

But where are the profiles of folks like Lila Rose and Joan Andrews Bell and many other lesser-known folks?


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

Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

Can you feel the unity yet? That’s the joke among political conservatives as the Biden administration closed out its first week.

Within hours of taking the oath of office on his family’s massive Bible, President Joe Biden signed a raft of executive orders — something that went on in the ensuing days — to undo strategic executive moves during Donald Trump’s presidency. During that process, Biden fan afoul of traditional Catholic teachings and, once again, placed the spotlight on his Catholic faith.

Political and religious conservatives (not always the same thing) can agree that Biden’s actions over the past week didn’t foster unity. If anything, this blitz of activity highlighted the differences between two ever-divergent Catholic camps in this country, something that revealed itself on Day 1 among the U.S. bishops and across the Atlantic Ocean in Rome as a result of dueling statements and the polemics it unleashed, all of which pointed to old fights and old wounds. Can you say “Theodore McCarrick”?

Biden, the first Roman Catholic president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, is often identified as “devout” (click here for background), when journalists describe his faith. Of course, the doctrinal side of Biden’s piety isn’t something journalists dig into. We don’t know what is in Biden’s heart or even his head.

But here is the key point for journalists and news readers: What we do know — as is the case with every politician — is what he does and says. Options about church teachings on marriage and sexuality are one thing. Biden’s decision to perform an actual gay union rite represented open conflict with the teachings of his church.

Journalists can (and should) report and show where there is overlap regarding church teachings and where there is clear contradiction. The Religious Left will soon learn that it shouldn’t hitch their wagon to any political ideology. The Religious Right learned that the hard way with Trump — something that could take years to unspool when it comes to credibility.

With Biden being a Democrat, however, I don’t expect the mainstream press to do any of this. Instead, we see puff pieces from The New York Times calling Biden “perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century.” Guess they forgot that George W. Bush was a born-again Christian who regularly attended services. What about Jimmy Carter’s decades teaching Sunday school?

Here’s the key excerpt from that very feature that ran this past Saturday:


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

New podcast: Why the infamous 'McCarrick doctrine' haunted U.S. Catholic bishops this week

, , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Why the infamous 'McCarrick doctrine' haunted U.S. Catholic bishops this week

It was a great week to be a Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Catholic.

Now, before anyone gets mad, let me stress that the McCarrick mentioned during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was not the “Uncle Ted” McCarrick known for bunking with seminarians or the trusted priest or bishop accused of fondling teen-aged boys from families that trusted him.

No, it was Cardinal McCarrick, the consummate networker, trusted fundraiser, ecclesiastical kingmaker and media manipulator. This was the man who, as archbishop of Washington, D.C., created the so-called “McCarrick Doctrine” that protected national-level Catholic politicians whose faith was a crucial part of their lives and images, even if many ancient doctrines didn’t mesh well with their political agendas. This McCarrick also claimed — in a public speech — to have helped elect Pope Francis.

This was the McCarrick whose legacy helped shape the remarkable war inside the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that jumped into clear view on Inauguration Day.

It was easy to see this coming. I wrote about it several weeks ago in this “On Religion” column: “Joe Biden and the U.S. Catholic bishops — Tensions remain about Holy Communion.” And Catholic-press veteran J.D. Flynn clearly knew something big was coming when, a day before the Biden inauguration, he wrote an analysis — “Biden and the bishops. This probably will not go well” — for his new (and essential) website called The Pillar. Check out this lede:

Shortly after President Joe Biden begins his term of office, the U.S. bishops will be derided as culture warriors and abortion obsessives, unwilling to find common ground with the administration of the second Catholic U.S. president.

Sure enough, the elected leader of America’s Catholic bishops issued a letter (hold that thought) criticizing Biden’s actions supporting abortion rights, while hinting at clashes over religious liberty (Hello, Little Sisters of the Poor) and church doctrines on marriage and sex.

This drew an angry social-media response from Catholic progressives — including key men wearing red hats. Their outcry led to this headline in The Washington Post: “As Biden is sworn in, president of U.S. bishops assails him over abortion.”

In a bombshell report, The Pillar noted that the Vatican tried to ban the distribution of the USCCB statement by Gomez — at least until team Pope Francis could release a more politically nuanced letter. That headline: “Vatican intervened to spike US bishops’ Biden statement release.”

But back to the Post. The overture for that report says exactly what one would expect it to say:


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

New podcast: Who stands in the middle of American politics? Often, that's a religion question

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Who stands in the middle of American politics? Often, that's a religion question

There were two major stories in American life this week, when it seemed like the world turned in a matter of minutes.

The riot at the U.S. Capitol grew out of yet another legal Donald Trump rally, with its familiar mix of hero worship, populist rage and, yes, rhetoric and symbols used by conservative, often Pentecostal, Christians. Fired up by a truly radical message from the president, many (not all) of these protestors marched to Capitol and turned into an illegal mob, crashing through security fences and then through doors and windows. Yes, some of the Christian banners and signs went with them.

We will be learning more about the makeup of that mob as participants are identified, arrest and tried — perhaps under (irony alert) Trump’s June 26th executive order authorizing a “penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for the willful injury of Federal property.”

There have been waves of statements by religious leaders condemning the violence, including many by evangelicals who (a) opposed Trump, (b) reluctantly voted for him or (c) enthusiastically backed him. I expect more coverage on all of that (I’m collecting material for an “On Religion” column). Readers can start with this piece from the left, care of HuffPost.com: “Trump’s Evangelical Allies Condemn Violence At The Capitol.” It focuses on evangelicals who are still finding it hard to attack Trump, while — almost hidden at the end — noting views from some of condemned both the violence and the president’s role in it.

Let me know, via comments or email, if you see more religion-driven riot coverage.

Meanwhile, this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) centered on a GetReligion post that was written about two hours before the riots began: “Life after Georgia — Questions about a pro-life Democrat in U.S. Senate and other issues ...”

The key is that victories by two Democrats (one a liberal Baptist pastor) put a very interesting conservative (and Catholic) senator at the middle of America’s increasingly divided and even bloody political map.

That man, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, is a living symbol of what used to be a major force in American politics — the white Southern Democrat. Although he has been endorsed by Democrats For Life, his pragmatic political views on that topic will not be found in the Democratic or Republican platforms, but do resemble the views of millions of centrist Americans.

Many Democrats, in the past, have insisted that Manchin is not really a Democrat. Well, how many want to toss him out of the party right now (with that 50-50 Senate split)?


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

Life after Georgia: Questions about a pro-life Democrat in U.S. Senate and other issues ...

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Life after Georgia: Questions about a pro-life Democrat in U.S. Senate and other issues ...

Once upon a time, there were these strange political unicorns called “pro-life Democrats.” They were often, but not always, part of another endangered species called “blue-dog Democrats.”

Most of these unique politicos were in the U.S. House of Representatives, but there were occasional — but increasingly rare — sightings in the U.S. Senate. After all, Tennessean Al Gore had an 84% rating with National Right to Life when he was a congressman, but that changed — for the most part — when he became a senator. And as vice president? Forget about it.

This brings us to the thought for the day, a quote drawn from a mini-firestorm in the Democratic Party back in 2017. Here is a quote from an “On Religion” column at that time:

… Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez drew another bright line defining who participates in the work of his party.

"Every Democrat, like every American," he said, "should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. This is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state." In fact, he added, "every candidate who runs as a Democrat" should affirm abortion rights.

What if that state is West Virginia?

Some key Democrats quickly stepped forward in 2017 — including Rep. Nancy Pelosi — to suggest that Perez wasn’t speaking for all top Democrats. Still, the party’s stance on abortion rights and funding continued to veer further and further to the cultural and religious left, eventually causing one Joe Biden to shed the last scraps of his once “centrist” stance.

This, of course, brings us to religion-beat angles in the aftermath of the Georgia earthquake, in which Democrats — Black and White — and other anti-Donald Trump voters appear to have handed the Democrats the slimmest possible control of the U.S. Senate.

This brings us to Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a conservative Democrat and active Roman Catholic who has been endorsed by Democrats for Life, even though his record on that issue has become rather complex. He remains a throwback to the days when it was perfectly normal to be a Democrat and a cultural conservative. One can imagine the pressure he faces from establishment Democrats.

Well, how many Democrats want to toss Manchin out of the party right now?


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

New year and many old issues: Catholic storylines journalists need to keep an eye on in 2021

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

I am not a very good prognosticator. Yet this is the time of year that forces many journalists to do just that.

What will 2021 bring? That’s the big question following a 2020 that will forever remain a year where the world was held hostage by a pandemic. It was also a year where we had a combative presidential election and a reawakened social justice movement that brought our divided politics out into our streets. Could any of us have accurately predicted what 2020 would have been like? I don’t think so.

That hasn’t stopped many from trying to predict what next year will be like. The vaccine could bring with it prosperity and freedom again, but a new strain of the virus has forced much of Europe into lockdown once again. A lot of what 2021 will look like — in terms of religion and faith — will depend on the virus and how politicians choose to handle it.

It’s true that the pandemic exposed all kinds of issues in our society. The journalism that is tasked with objectively reporting these issues so that citizens can make informed decisions failed us miserably, a trend that was years in the making, but peaked in 2020 with the presidential election. My post from this past June highlighted this extremely difficult realization for me after more than 20 years in the business. Here’s the main thrust of that post:

News coverage — be it about politics, culture or religion — is largely made up of crimes (in the legal sense) or lapses in judgement (in a moral one). But the news media has changed in the Internet age, primarily because of social media. Facebook, Twitter and TikTok, to name just three, allows users — everyday people — to pump out content. That content can take many forms — from benign observations to what’s called hot takes — for all to read and see.

Truth, fact checking and context are not important. What matters are likes and followers. What we have now is something some have called “The Great Awokening” and it appears to have forever transformed our political discourse and the journalism that tries to report on it.

Mainstream news organizations, in their quest for clicks amid hope of figuring out a new business model, now mirror the content we all see on social media platforms. Newsrooms loaded with a younger generation who grew up in this environment have imposed their own woke politics as their morality thermometer.

The news media both underplayed COVID-19 and then hyped it, only to pause their concern in the wake of the George Floyd protests. For a list of 2020 media misses, check out this roundup.

That’s in the past now, but we will indeed be talking about 2020 for years and decades to come. Instead of trying to predict the future, the aim of this post is to advise mainstream journalists on what the major Catholic news storylines will be over the next 12 months — in the United States and the world.


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

How would Democrats, journalists and bishops view a centrist abortion stance by Biden?

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

Journalists who have studied the history of Catholic disputes about politicians and Holy Communion are probably familiar with this name — Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel of New Orleans.

There’s a good reason that that.

In 1962, Rummel infuriated segregationists by ordering the integration of all local parish schools. This was especially important in the intensely Catholic culture of Louisiana and it led to debates about how bishops relate to Catholic politicians that continue to this day. That was the topic that loomed in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) focusing on this recent GetReligion post: “Washington Post explores Joe Biden's faith, while embracing language of Catholic left.”

Back to Rummel. The 1964 New York Times obituary for this archbishop noted that he had, as early as 1949, taken actions expressing his opposition — clearly rooted in Catholic teachings — to segregation and other expressions of racism. In 1953 he issued an order stating that Black Catholics no longer had to wait at the end of the line to receive Holy Communion.

But it was the battle over integrating Catholic schools that put this archbishop’s name in the history books. The Times obit noted:

Archbishop Rummel's stand was publicly opposed by three prominent church members: Leander H. Perez Sr., president of the Plaquemines Parish Council, Jackson G. Ricau, executive director of the South Louisiana Citizens Councils, and Mrs. B. J. Gaillot Jr., head of Save Our Nation. Inc.

The three were excommunicated by the Archbishop after they failed to accept letters of “paternal admonition.”

Yes, they were excommunicated. That’s a big step beyond informing them that they should not receive Holy Communion. But note: These Louisiana politicians rejected a direct order from their bishop.

In recent decades, Catholic leaders have argued about whether Rummel’s action is relevant during discussions of how to handle Catholic politicians — especially those seeking national office — who openly support abortion on demand and take other actions to oppose church teachings on marriage and sex.

The question, of course, is where to draw the line when discipling Catholics in public life. American bishops have ended up in a tense standoff linked to controversial actions taken by a rather controversial Catholic — Theodore McCarrick. Yes, that is “Uncle Ted.” As I noted in a recent “On Religion” column:


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

Ties that bind Joe Biden and Cardinal Gregory: How will Catholic issues shape the news?

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

Politics and religion can make for strange bedfellows. We know that from the past four years and the cozy alliance President Donald Trump forged with conservative Christians.

Evangelicals and traditional Catholics in large numbers voted for Trump over the last two elections, many with enthusiasm and others with great reluctance. The fallout from that voter trend will be felt for years to come.

President-elect Joe Biden is the nation’s second Catholic president, the first since John F. Kennedy in 1960. Biden didn’t run away from his faith in 2020. Instead, he embraced it.

Biden’s brand of Catholicism resonated with the mainstream press and many voters. The election now over, how Biden navigates the complicated world of the church’s hierarchy will be a big storyline.

There will be a general sense of calm in news coverage once Biden starts his term. That means the typical honeymoon period offered every president (with the exclusion of Donald Trump) will stretch far beyond the first 100 days.

How religion is covered in this climate — and Catholicism specifically — by mainstream newsrooms will affect many news stories. Look for stories that celebrate any and all Catholic images and teachings cited by Biden in support of left-of-center political efforts. There will be a revival on the religious left.

Coverage during recent weeks may serve as a prelude to what’s to come.

Many journalists feel that the press helped elect Trump, offering waves of coverage of his candidacy during the GOP primaries before the 2016 election. This year, the Hunter Biden scandal offered the press a chance to beat up on Joe Biden and we could have seen a repeat of 2016. Instead, the press ignored the scandal — with help from Big Tech — and blamed it on Russian disinformation.

With the election now over, we have learned that there was an investigation underway and that this topic would have been fair game for coverage.

You don’t need to be a Trump fan to see that many professionals in America’s press have gone astray. Many journalists are now rationalizing an advocacy brand of journalism, instead of doing what they traditionally have been paid to do — report the facts and give readers and viewers unbiased reporting.

How will these trends affect coverage of Biden’s faith and Catholicism in this country?


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

Thinking about Xavier Becerra: A conservative Catholic checklist of sure-fire news stories

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

First things first. Yes, the following think piece is from a conservative Catholic news source.

But there are times when doctrinally conservative Catholic folks need to read the National Catholic Reporter. And this is a time when doctrinally liberal Catholics — and journalists, especially — should read and mark up an article from the National Catholic Register.

Here’s why: This essay contains a long checklist of valid story ideas, as in issues from the past that are almost certain to come up again in the near future. You can see this in the long, long second line in this Register headline:

What a Xavier Becerra HHS Could Mean for Catholics

Becerra’s record in California shows that he, perhaps more than any other state attorney general, has been willing to wield the power of the state to enforce pro-abortion policies against religious and pro-life groups.

Now it’s true that, for conservative Catholics, this story is packed with potential public-policy nightmares, in terms of their impact on traditional Catholic groups and ministries. Can you say “Little Sisters of the Poor”?

At the same time, many — but not all — Catholic liberals will cheer if some of these policy showdowns come to pass.

In terms of doctrine and church-state law, Catholics on the left and right will have radically different views of Becerra being handed this crucial high ground in the culture wars. Evangelicals who lead colleges and universities will be concerned, as well.

But that’s beside the point, if one looks at this piece through the eyes of a religion-beat professional (or even an open-minded scribe on the political desk) who is looking for valid stories to cover. Journalists need to read all of this, but here are a few items that demonstrate what I am saying. Spot the potential stories in this passage:


Please respect our Commenting Policy