Abortion

, , , , , , ,

Plug-In: At 20th anniversary of 9/11, faith remains big part of this world-shaking story

, , , , , , ,
Plug-In: At 20th anniversary of 9/11, faith remains big part of this world-shaking story

Like everybody alive then, I remember what I was doing the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

At the time, I was religion editor for The Oklahoman, the metro daily in Oklahoma City. I was running a few minutes late that Tuesday because I stopped at Walmart to buy a new pair of cleats for a company softball team starting the fall season that night. As it turned out, we didn't play.

As I flashed my company ID at the security guard outside the newspaper building, he asked if I'd heard about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center in New York. I had not. Minutes later, after I arrived in the ninth-floor newsroom, my colleagues and I watched on television as a second plane hit the twin towers. Almost immediately, ABC anchor Peter Jennings likened the attack to Pearl Harbor.

That's when I grasped the significance.

The rest of that day is a blur. Like my reporter colleagues all over the nation, I immediately put aside any personal feelings and operated on journalistic adrenaline. I wrote four bylined stories for the next day's paper: one on the religious community's response, one on Muslim fears of a backlash, one on Oklahoma City bombing victims' reactions and one on an eyewitness account by an Oklahoma professor's daughter.

Like many (most?) Americans, I tossed and turned that night.

In the days and weeks after 9/11, I recall interviewing religious leaders and ordinary congregants as they looked to God and sought to explain the seemingly unexplainable.

Twenty years later, faith remains a big part of the story. Here is some of the must-read coverage:

• Eastern Orthodox shrine to replace church destroyed on 9/11 nears completion (by Peter Smith, Associated Press)

• Generation 9/11 (by Emily Belz, World)

• Young Sikhs still struggle with post-Sept. 11 discrimination (by Anita Snow and Noreen Nasir, AP)


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

New podcast: Where is the elite news coverage of tensions between Pelosi and her bishop?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Where is the elite news coverage of tensions between Pelosi and her bishop?

Here is a political science question for you, but it’s relevant to an important religion-beat story.

The vice president of the United States is No. 2, in terms of the presidential line of succession, just ahead of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But in terms of real, day-by-day power, who has more clout in America’s system of government, the vice president or the speaker?

If you have lived and worked on Capitol Hill (as I did for a decade or more), I think you would agree the speaker has more dollars-and-cents clout, as opposed to the largely symbolic “one heartbeat away” status given to the vice president.

With that in mind, let’s turn to an important news story that ran in July at Crux, under this headline: “SF Archbishop says Pelosi can’t call herself a ‘devout Catholic’.” This story was at the heart of the discussion during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). Here is the overture of that piece:

NEW YORK – Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, the home archdiocese of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has insisted that “devout Catholics” can’t support abortion, just after Pelosi had described herself in precisely those terms.

“Let me repeat: No one can claim to be a devout Catholic and condone the killing of innocent human life, let alone have the government pay for it,” Cordileone said in a statement. “The right to life is a fundamental — the most fundamental ­— human right, and Catholics do not oppose fundamental human rights.”

Hours earlier, at her weekly press conference, Pelosi stated her support for repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion, “because it’s an issue of health for many women in America,” and she also emphasized her Catholic faith.

“As a devout Catholic and mother of five in six years, I feel that God has blessed my husband and me with our beautiful family,” Pelosi said. “But it’s not up to me to dictate that’s what other people should do, and it’s an issue of fairness and justice for poor women in our country.”

This leads us to that op-ed by Cordileone that ran the other day at The Washington Post, with this headline: “Our duty to challenge Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.”

Here is the top of that piece. Read carefully and look for an important term that is showing up in more and more statements by some, repeat “some,” U.S. Catholic bishops:


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

Mexico's high court backs abortion rights: Who did the Washington Post choose to interview?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Mexico's high court backs abortion rights: Who did the Washington Post choose to interview?

The trend started a decade ago, or even earlier, about the time when social media took over and many elite newsrooms began caring less about seeking out qualified, informed voices on both sides of hot stories.

The result was a kind of fail-safe method for spotting media bias, especially with stories located at the intersection of politics, religion and the cultural changes, especially those linked to the Sexual Revolution.

First, readers can print a copy of the story in question and then, with a highlighter pen, mark quotes from people who appear to have been interviewed by the reporters — the sources whose voices provide the framing anecdotes and quotations that provide crucial facts and material that interpret the facts.

Then, with a second highlighter, mark the quotes from experts, activists and citizens on the other side of the issue. The key question: How many of these quotes came from actual interviews and how many were taken from online press releases and statements?

Compare and contrast. The big question: What sources were shown respect — with personal interviews — and which sources were demoted to PR release status? (Personal comment: As a columnist, I have found that quoting personal weblogs — Twitter as well — can offer a kind of neutral ground, with more information and authentic “voices” than mere press releases.)

In my experience, 99% of the time the people who are quoted from interviews represent the viewpoints that are favored and respected by the journalists who produced the story. With that in mind, let’s look at the sourcing in an international-desk story that ran in The Washington Post with this headline: “Mexico decriminalizes abortion, a dramatic step in world’s second-biggest Catholic country.”

The Catholic angle is crucial, of course. Who would be interviewed? Activists in ministries to pregnant women? Canon lawyers? Perhaps a Catholic priest or historian who knows why “life” issues are so crucial in the church’s theology? I will also ask: Was anyone from the religion-desk allowed input into the sourcing?

Let’s start with the overture:

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s supreme court voted Tuesday to decriminalize abortion, a striking step in a country with one of the world’s largest Catholic populations and a decision that contrasts with tighter restrictions introduced across the border in Texas.


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

Possible clues for reporters seeking religion angles in 2022 and 2024 elections

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Possible clues for reporters seeking religion angles in 2022 and 2024 elections

A year from now the Supreme Court will have ruled on its lollapalooza Dobbs abortion case, we'll know how much permanent damage Afghanistan dealt to the Biden-Harris Administration and -- we can hope -- COVID-19 and Delta may finally be under control.

Also, journalists will be in the thick of covering a red-hot election for the U.S. House and Senate and the state legislatures.

How will religion play into the outcome? Though church numbers are sliding, reporters shouldn't forget that more than with many other factors, religious participants by the millions provide readily organized activists and voting blocs.

There could be clues in Pew Research Center's report last week offering the last word on religious voters in 2020, with some comparative information from its 2016 post-election report. Rather than exit polling, Pew analyzed responses from 9,668 members of its ongoing, randomly selected American Trends Panel who were verified as having actually voted by checking commercially available lists.

White evangelical Protestants went 84% for Donald Trump's re-election, which is not surprising but remains significant for Republican strategists (and for this movement's own societal and outreach prospects). Pew says they gave Trump "only" 77% in 2016, slightly less than was shown in exit polls and a bit below Mitt Romney's 2012 support.

But evangelicals always go Republican. That’s no surprise.


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

In the news media storm about the Texas abortion bill: Outrage -- 1, objectivity -- 0

, , , , , , ,
In the news media storm about the Texas abortion bill: Outrage -- 1, objectivity -- 0

If I had to sum up last week’s media maelstrom on Texas’ new abortion regulations, it’s this: 95 percent of the quotes was from those who opposed it. Maybe 5 percent was from those who favored it. And of that 5 percent, how many of them were inserted near the top of the piece rather than strung together near the end?

We’re talking about the Texas Heartbeat Act, aka S.B. 8, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected (usually around six weeks). Individuals who learn of violations can sue the clinics involved and anyone who helps women get abortions.

Which could your friendly Uber or Lyft driver, which is why both companies, according to CNBC, have offered to cover legal fees for any driver caught transporting a woman to a clinic.

Probably the most thoughtful dispatch was Emma Green’s piece in The Atlantic. It was a Q&A more than an essay, but at least it was an interview with the Other Side, which has been lambasted everywhere else for introducing a real-life Handmaid’s Tale situation into the Lone Star state. The lead sentence began:

Sometimes, the Supreme Court does the most when it does nothing. Last night, the justices denied an emergency petition by abortion providers in Texas seeking to block S.B. 8, a law banning pregnancy terminations after roughly six weeks’ gestation.

A 5–4 majority of the justices argued that they had no power to stop the law from going into effect, since none of the citizens who are now empowered under the law to sue abortion clinics for providing the procedure has yet attempted to do so.

Hold that thought. What’s new in Texas is something called “private enforcement,” by which any citizen -– and I mean anyone –- can report -– or sue -– someone trying to sneak an abortion past them. It’s a stunning legal strategy that evades the lawsuits that groups like Planned Parenthood use to quash their opponents.

Some on the pro-life side, like conservative pundit David French, aren’t happy with it at all, feeling that it’s bad law that will end up biting pro-lifers in the end. He is not the only abortion opponent who feels this way but there was zero reporting out there on the mixed feelings in his camp. Back to The Atlantic:

Legal challenges likely lie ahead. But abortion opponents see this as a victory, however temporary. For now, at least, abortion clinics in Texas are largely suspending their work and abiding by the ban.

The article continues as an interview with John Seago, the legislative director of Texas Right to Life who, more than anyone, contributed to the success of this law. Right away, Green jumped to the crux of the law; people reporting on other people. His answer:

There are two main motivations. The first one is lawless district attorneys that the pro-life movement has dealt with for years. In October, district attorneys from around the country publicly signed a letter saying they will not enforce pro-life laws. They said that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, they are not going to use resources holding the abortion industry to account. That shows that the best way to get a pro-life policy into effect is not by imposing criminal penalties, but civil liability.

The second is that the pro-life movement is extremely frustrated with activist judges at the district level who are not doing their job to adjudicate conflicts between parties, but who in fact go out of their way to score ideological points—blocking pro-life laws because they think they violate the Constitution or pose undue burdens.

For anyone wishing to understand why Texans went to this “private enforcement” stratagem is because they’ve tried everything else for the 48 years that Roe v. Wade has been in effect. And with a legal system set against them no matter what they do, it was time to come up with something else. And they did.


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

New podcast: Gray Lady prints some complex Ryan Burge insights on Democrats and religion

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Gray Lady prints some complex Ryan Burge insights on Democrats and religion

Something old, something new.

Something red, something blue.

We started with something new and something blue during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). But, as you will see, the “something old” turned out to be blue, as well.

“Blue,” of course, refers to the liberal/progressive half of the starkly divided American political scene, which also reflects, of course, divisions on moral, social, cultural and religious issues.

Oceans of mass-media ink have been poured out in recent decades by journalists covering the Religious Right and its scary impact on the Republican Party. What about the religious left — no capital letters, of course — and its impact on the Democrats?

That isn’t an important story, of course. At the start of the podcast I quoted some numbers retrieved at mid-week from some Google searches. A basic search for “Religious Right” yielded 6.5 million hits and a Google News search found 77,500 items. Do the same thing for “religious left” and you get 196,000 in the first search and 3,680 in the news search. Amazing, that.

This brings us to a New York Times op-ed essay by the increasingly omnipresent (and that’s a good thing) political scientist Ryan Burge, who contributes charts and info here at GetReligion. The headline: “A More Secular America Is Not Just a Problem for Republicans.” Here’s an early thesis statement:

Today, scholars are finding that by almost any metric they use to measure religiosity, younger generations are much more secular than their parents or grandparents. In responses to survey questions, over 40 percent of the youngest Americans claim no religious affiliation, and just a quarter say they attend religious services weekly or more.

Americans have not come to terms with how this cultural shift will affect so many facets of society — and that’s no more apparent than when it comes to the future of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The impact on the GOP is rather obvious. While conservative religious groups remain strong in America (evangelicals are not vanishing, for example), the number of religiously unaffiliated (“nones”) continues to rise and the vague middle of the religious spectrum continues to shrink. Meanwhile, conservatives face an increasingly “woke” corporate culture and fading support on the left for old-fashioned First Amendment liberalism (think “religious liberty” framed in scare quotes).

Things get interesting — especially in the context of the Times op-ed world — when Burge discusses complications now facing Democratic Party leaders.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Sports and religion: Simone Biles, mental health and why no mention of rosaries

, , , , , ,
Sports and religion: Simone Biles, mental health and why no mention of rosaries

It’s mid-August, so it’s the time of year when the Lisi clan leaves the hustle-and-bustle of New York City for a few weeks for the quieter environs of Long Island’s East End. It’s from this undisclosed beach location where I wrote this post about the latest goings on in the Catholic world.

It’s has been a busy summer for Catholicism and this month could be even busier. I’ve been distracted, in part, by sports. The subsiding of the pandemic brought back sports with a roar this summer. The centerpiece for it all has been the pandemic-delayed Tokyo Games.

The Olympics have been a great distraction from the Delta variant, our insane politics and the culture wars that dominate the news cycle every minute of each day.

It’s true that sports do intersect with these topics, but that’s why I typically limit my Twitter minutes this time of year. I’ve been fascinated by the athletes — and in particular the ones with ties to Catholicism — that dominated the recent Summer Games.

The headliner, of course, was gymnast Simone Biles and her decision to temporarily withdraw from competition to prioritize her mental health drew criticism, but also massive praise.

Her actions put a spotlight on athletes’ mental health, but also highlighted the inability of the mainstream press to delve deeper and ask pertinent questions regarding her faith. You see, Biles is a Roman Catholic, something written about leading up to the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio. You wouldn’t know it from the news coverage of the past few weeks.

The lack of mentions in news accounts of Biles being Catholic in regards to her mental wellness spilled over this past Monday when the gymnast’s Instagram account made news. She claimed to be pro-abortion-rights in a post, triggering plenty of mainstream news coverage. In a subsequent Twitter post, Biles wrote that in no way did she favor aborting babies as an alternative to the foster care system. Biles grew up in the foster care system and was later adopted.

Again, none of the mainstream news coverage included that she is an active Roman Catholic.


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

Press braces for the Supreme Court's big one: Religion and abortion (phase I)

, , , , , , , , ,
Press braces for the Supreme Court's big one: Religion and abortion (phase I)

In late July the U.S. Supreme Court's in-box was clogged with dozens of secular and religious briefs that oppose its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established women's right to abortion, further defined in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.

Next up, watch for briefs that back the high Court's existing abortion-rights regime, which are due by mid-September. There should be keen journalistic interest in which religions decide to bless "pro-choice" policies and why, with likely contentions that 1st Amendment religious liberty requires legalized abortion even as other Christian and Jewish thinkers disagree.

The media are well aware that the Court's upcoming decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case (docket #19-1392) will be epochal, and the new briefs show the issue is as politically contentious as ever.

Dobbs involves rigid abortion limits even before fetal "viability" as legislated by Mississippi.

In response, fully 25 of the 50 states, all with Republican attorneys general, are asking the Court to scuttle Roe and Casey. Also, 87% of the Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate, from 40 states, want the two decisions overturned "where necessary" while lower courts clean up legal muddles. Also filing on this side are 396 legislators in 41 states.

Briefs also come from "pro-life" or religious physicians, nurses, and attorneys, "pro-family" organizations, and notable intellectuals like John Finnis of the University of Oxford, Robert George of Princeton University (click here for his recent tweetstorm), and Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.

Also Dr. Ben Carson, the world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon and Donald Trump Cabinet member. He argues not from his Seventh-day Adventist faith but from embryology, saying the existence of a "new unique human life" at conception is "objective scientific fact. " He considers life to be a "natural right" that "does not depend on theology."

Writers will find a similar approach in the most important religious organization brief.


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

When a Catholic politician is denied Communion, why does Axios think he's heroic?

, , , , , , ,
When a Catholic politician is denied Communion, why does Axios think he's heroic?

Ever since President Joe Biden took office, fellow GetReligionista Clemente Lisi has been writing articles about the new president’s inevitable clash with Catholic bishops over Communion, and how President Biden is regularly framed as a “devout” Catholic despite his major departure from said doctrine on life issues, not to mention religious liberty. The bishops, on the other hand, are framed as “right wing.”

The Communion conundrum has spread to a state where I used to live: New Mexico, home of the country’s largest annual pilgrimage of penitents who walk 30 miles every Good Friday from Santa Fe to the Chimayo sanctuary in the northern hills. New Mexico is drenched in Catholicism, starting around April 30, 1598, when Spanish explorers coming north from Mexico held a Thanksgiving Mass and dinner near the Rio Grande.

There are evangelical Protestants, Jews, Buddhists and other groups around the state, but the bulk of the populace is Catholic, so the Communion issue is going to matter there, which is why one bishop’s decision to bar a local Catholic politician from the altar makes waves. Here is how Axios framed it:

A New Mexico lawmaker denied Communion by a bishop over his vote to advance abortion protections told Axios exclusively he won't be bullied and looks forward to receiving Communion with President Biden one day.

Just for fun, I’ll also run the lede from the National Catholic Register just for comparison:

After a New Mexico state senator said he was denied Communion this weekend because of a political matter, his diocese responded that it had privately warned him he should not present himself for Communion, due to his obstinate support for a pro-abortion bill.

Two different takes, no? Back to Axios:

Why it matters: The example set by Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Democrat, is drawing the attention of lawmakers around the country. Blue states are moving to protect abortion rights should the Supreme Court overturn or erode Roe v. Wade.

• "I won't have any problem finding to place to receive Communion," Cervantes said during an interview. "In fact, I look forward one day to receiving Communion at the same parish where President Biden does."

• He said other parishes and another diocese in New Mexico have offered to give him Communion, highlighting the split among U.S. Catholic bishops over elected officials and abortion.

The slant of this piece is a textbook example of why conservatives of all religious persuasions tend to loathe the media. The lede basically states takes Cervantes’ word for it that he is being “bullied,” without mentioning that Cervantes went out of his way to defy private exhortations from his spiritual overseers.


Please respect our Commenting Policy