GetReligion
Wednesday, April 02, 2025

Louisiana

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

Podcast: Why didn't @NYTimes mention complex political history of 'equal access' laws?

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

The church-state roller-coaster at the U.S. Supreme Court just keeps going and we’re not done yet.

The main purpose of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was to talk about my recent post about Chief Justice Roberts and his decision to switch sides and defend the high court’s abortion legacy. SCOTUS, on a 5-4 vote, took down a Louisiana state law that would have required doctors working in abortion facilities to have the same kind of admitting privileges at local hospitals and those who work in other specialty surgery centers.

Mainstream journalists didn’t seem interested in the personalities behind that law. To get those ordinary facts, readers had to go to religious and/or “conservative” websites. Thus, I offered this headline: “Conservative news? White GOP justice strikes down bill by black, female pro-life Democrat.” Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, who signed the bill, is a Democrat, too.

Why did so many journalists ignore that angle? It would appear that those facts didn’t fit into the white evangelicals just love Donald Trump template. Why muddy the political waters with coverage of two Democrats — a black Baptist and a white Catholic?

Lo and behold, by the time we did the live Lutheran Public Radio show, the court had released another 5-4 decision that, at first glance, had little or nothing to do with the Louisiana abortion bill. Here’s the New York Times double-decker headline on that story:

Supreme Court Gives Religious Schools More Access to State Aid

Religious schools should have the same access to scholarships and funds as other private schools, the justices ruled, in a victory for conservatives.

Readers who have followed church-state issues will recognize a key fact that the Times team — to its credit — got into that headline: Secular and religious private schools should be treated the same.

That immediately made me wonder if the Times, and other major mainstream outlets, were going to realize that this “equal access” principle was crucial to the church-state coalition of liberals and conservatives that accomplished so much working with (wait for it) the Clinton White House.

That’s interesting, right?


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

Conservative news? White GOP justice strikes down bill by black, female pro-life Democrat

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No doubt about it, there were some interesting political angles linked to the latest U.S. Supreme Court setback for Americans who want to see more safety regulations applied to the abortion facilities.

Much of the news coverage of this 5-4 decision focused — with good reason — on Chief Justice John Roberts voting with the court’s liberal wing. Once again, press reports stressed that Roberts showed maturity, independence and nuance as he voted against his own alleged convictions, as stated in a dissent in an earlier case on a similar bill.

The coverage also stressed — with good cause — the potential impact of this decision on the Election Day enthusiasm of (wait for it) evangelicals who back the Donald Trump machine.

But there was another crucial element of this story that I expected to receive some coverage. I am talking about the origins of the actual Louisiana legislation that was struck down by the court.

Who created this bill and why did they create it? Was this some kind of Trump-country project backed by the usual suspects? Actually — no. The key person behind this bill was State Sen. Katrina Jackson, an African-American lawyer from Monroe, La. The bill was then signed by Governor John Bel Edwards, also a Democrat.

But wait, you say: Democrats in Louisiana are different. The Catholic church and the black church are major players, when it comes to the state’s mix of populist economics and a more conservative approach to culture.

In other words, there is a religion angle to this story, as well as the obvious political hooks that dominated the coverage. Hold that thought, because we will come back to it. First, here is the top of the Associated Press story that ran across the nation:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.

Chief Justice John Roberts and his four more liberal colleagues ruled that a law that requires doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.


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

Journalists should be gearing up for big 'culture war' cases at U.S. Supreme Court

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The COVID-19 emergency shouldn’t divert the media from getting prepared for an unusual pileup of big “culture war” news that will break at the U.S. Supreme Court during the weeks through early July.

Pending decisions the media will need to interpret involve abortion, religious conscience claims, gay and transgender rights, taxpayer aid for students at religious school and (yet again) religious objections to mandatory birth-control coverage under Obamacare. Next term, the court will take up the direct conflict between LGBTQ advocacy and religious conscience, an uber-important problem.

These cases will show us how the newest justices, Neil Gorsuch (age 52, seated 2017) and Brett Kavanaugh (age 55, seated 2018), will be reshaping court edicts on religio-cultural disputes.

Here are the imminent decisions to be ready for.

Espinoza v. Montana (docket #18-1195) — This regards the venerable “Blaine amendments” in many state constitutions that forbid religion-related aid by taxpayers. Does a state violate the U.S. Constitution’s “equal protection” clause if it denies generally available public scholarships to students who attend religious schools?

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, incorporating Trump v. Pennsylvania (19-431) — Last week, the court heard arguments in this case involving claims of religious rights vs. women’s rights. Did a Trump administration setup properly exempt religious objectors from the Obamacare mandate that requires employers to arrange birth-control coverage?

June Medical Services v. Russo (18-1323) — Louisiana requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which pro-choice advocates say hobbles women’s access to abortion. In 2016, a Supreme Court with different membership threw out such a regulation in Texas

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, incorporating St. James School v. Biel (docket # 19-267) — The court heard the argument on this Monday via a COVID-era telephone conference. This Catholic school case from California poses whether under the Constitution’s religious freedom clause schools and agencies can discriminate in hiring workers who are not officially ordained “ministers” but may carry out some religious functions. In a similar Lutheran case in 2012, the high court said yes.


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

Gov. Edwards wins again in Louisiana, for some vague reason (And Trump? 'Bless his heart')

, , , , , , , ,

There was a joyful moment the other night — as in special election night — for people who oppose both Donald Trump and the current leadership of the woke Democratic Party.

I am referring to the victory of Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, who survived a hard push by Trump to defeat him. Democrats rarely get elected as governors in Southern states these days.

The question, of course, is this: How did Edwards do it? What made him electable in the current political atmosphere? I would have thought it was important to answer that question in the overture of the following Washington Post report:

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards was elected to a second term … , overcoming opposition from President Trump and an increasingly polarized state electorate to hand Democrats their second major victory in a governor’s race over the past two weeks.

Edwards, 53, was running against Republican businessman Eddie Rispone, 70, in a runoff election after neither candidate won an outright majority of votes last month. …

“How sweet it is,” Edwards told a crowd of cheering supporters at a victory rally late Saturday at the Renaissance Hotel in Baton Rouge.

Edwards said he had spoken with Rispone earlier in the evening. “We both agreed that the time for campaigning is over,” he said, “and now our shared love for Louisiana is always more important than the partisan differences that sometimes divide us.”

“And as for the president, God bless his heart,” Edwards added mockingly.

A few paragraphs later, readers learn that Edwards was a “relatively conservative Democrat” who “worked to prove his party could still lead a state that has continued to drift to the right in the Trump era.”

So other than Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump and Trump, what was going on in this story? What made issues helped make Edwards a winner in a state that Trump won in a landslide?

Way, way down in the story, there was this meaty chunk of information in which the Post finally stated a crucial point — Edwards is a pro-life Democrat who is relatively progressive on economic issues and a conservative on matters of culture. In other words, he is an old-school Southern Democrat.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Washington Post goes to 'Southern Bible Belt' to produce predictable story on abortion debate

, , , , ,

The best journalism offers insight and nuance, such as the Washington Post’s recent piece on people of faith in Greenville, N.C., where the crowd chanted “Sent her back! Send her back!” at President Donald Trump’s recent rally.

The worst journalism relies on caricatures and stereotypes, telling a predictable (yawn!) story that doesn’t do much to add to anyone’s understanding.

I’d suggest that the Post’s recent coverage of an abortion debate in a small Texas town falls into the latter category.

Think elite newspaper goes to hick town to explain what the crazy locals are doing. It’s a journalistic trip to the zoo, as we sometimes describe it here at GetReligion.

The lede:

WASKOM, Tex. — Almost overnight, a small town nestled in the heart of the Southern Bible Belt has become a battleground for America’s deeply divisive debate over women’s reproductive rights.

Two immediate thoughts:

1. “Southern Bible Belt.” Is there any part of the Bible Belt that isn’t Southern?

2. “women’s reproductive rights.” That wording right there give any clue as to the Post’s leaning? This isn’t an abortion debate; it’s a debate over women’s reproductive rights. (If you’re new to GR, find details here on the rampant news media bias against abortion opponents.)

Let’s read some more:


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

Thinking about beating Trump: How many Democrats would back a pro-life Democrat?

, , , , , , , , , ,

The conservative interfaith journal First Things is not the place that one would normally look for an essay offering advice to Democrats who absolutely, positively, want to defeat Donald Trump in the next race for the White House.

I had intended to put this piece up as this past weekend’s “think piece,” but was not able to get that done. My free WIFI options in the North Carolina mountains were much worse than normal. Where I hang out, there isn’t even service on my smartphone.

So what is going on with this First Things piece by John Murdock, an attorney in Texas?

First of all, he takes very seriously the evidence that many, many conservative Protestants and Catholics really didn’t want to vote for Trump the last time around, but felt they were stuck in a lesser-of-two evils crunch — because of Hillary Clinton’s stances on issues such as abortion and religious liberty.

So what if the Democratic Party ran a candidate — a popular governor in a state Trump carried — who is a consistent Catholic on moral and social issues as well as a solid Democrat on a host of economic and justice issues. Yes, we are headed back into those interesting pro-life Democrat waters, again (following up on some interesting coverage at The New York Times).

We are talking about Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana. Hold that thought, because we’ll come back to it.

Let’s start with this interesting Murdock analysis of the Hyde Amendment issue. That’s the longstanding ban on using federal dollars to fund abortions.

Polling by Morning Consult earlier this month found that 38 percent of likely Democratic primary voters supported the Hyde Amendment, as did 49 percent of the overall electorate (with only 33 percent opposed). That largely corroborates what Marist polling found in early 2018. Their survey showed that 24 percent of Democrats “strongly oppose using tax dollars to pay for a woman’s abortion.” Another 19 percent were “opposed,” making the total Democratic opposition to taxpayer-funded abortions 43 percent. While these voters may have other issues — like civil rights, immigration, or healthcare — driving their election day choices toward the Democrats, many would still prefer a more pro-life candidate if one were available. Today, none are.


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

Why do many Bible Belt Democrats oppose abortion? Truth is, that's a religion-beat story

, , , , , , , , ,

Democrats who, to one degree or another, oppose abortion are currently having another fleeting moment of mainstream media attention.

If you have been around for several decades (and you spent those decades as a pro-life Democrat) you have seen this happen before. Basically, this happens whenever the leadership of the Democratic Party and, thus, editors in some elite newsrooms, are tempted to believe that it’s in their political interest to win back conservative Democrats in parts of the Midwest, South and Southwest.

Right now, there are some Democrats who want to nominate a candidate that Donald Trump cannot, somehow, defeat in a few heartland states. But is that worth compromising on abortion, backing restrictions favored by a majority of centrist Americans and even large numbers of Democrats who do not live in the Acela Zone between Washington, D.C., and Boston?

Yesterday, my colleague Julia Duin wrote about a New York Times piece focusing on these issues — sort of. The headline noted a familiar hole in the coverage: “New York Times finally profiles pro-life Democrats but forgets to add what religion they might be.” Why did Times editors publish this story? Duin writes:

I’m guessing it is a follow-up on their April 9 story that had poll data showing how the Democrat Party’s hard-left activists don’t represent most of the party faithful.

So they sent a reporter not to the South, where a lot of conservative Democrats live, but to western Pennsylvania. Having lived four years in the county just north of Pittsburgh, I know that it’s the Bible Belt of the Rust Belt. But as far as I could tell, the reporter didn’t go near a house of worship. That’s a big journalism problem, in this case.

This brings me to a new piece in the New York Post that ran with this headline: “Why many Dems in the South back the new anti-abortion laws.”

This is not a hard-news piece. It’s an opinion essay by Salena Zito, but it includes lots of information gathered while reporting in Bible Belt-flyover country. GetReligion (other than weekend think pieces) normally doesn’t focus on opinion material, but I thought readers might want to see some this essay — since it directly addresses facts the Times team avoided in that recent A1 story.

Those two crucial subjects linked to the lives of pro-life Democrats? That would be race and religion.


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

Democrat takes political stand against abortion: Wait a minute, isn't this governor a Catholic?

, , , , , , , , ,

Let’s start here: Is it news when Democrats who are, to one degree or another, Catholic take actions that support abortion rights, especially with legislation linked to late-term abortions?

Well, ask Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Pretty soon, we may hear discussions of this issue linked to former Vice President Joe Biden.

So now let’s ask a variation on this question: Is it news when a prominent Democrat who is a Catholic takes actions to limit abortion rights, while openly linking his political views on a variety of progressive “life issues” to the teachings of his faith?

I would say a strong “yes.” Then again, I spent decades attempting to vote as a pro-life Democrat. (Confession: I gave up and registered with a third-party in 2016.)

The political desk at The Washington Post (mildly) agrees, on this point, when covering the current drama unfolding around Gov. John Bel Edwards, down in the complex political state that is Louisiana. The headline: “Louisiana’s Democratic governor just defied his party and signed an abortion ban into law.”

How about The New York Times? Hold that thought. First, here is a key passage that is buried pretty far down in the Post coverage. It does contain a crucial word — “Catholic.”

In Louisiana, the nation is seeing some of the last remaining antiabortion Democrats, a class of politician that has grown obscure in recent decades.

Edwards has been a high-profile member of that group since he was elected governor in 2015. Like other antiabortion Democrats, he likes to say he’s “pro-life for the whole life,” because he opposes abortion and supports policies such as Medicaid expansion and a higher minimum wage. In his post-vote statement, he said he believes that “being pro-life means more than just being pro-birth.”

The Army veteran and Catholic has said he traces his long-held views on abortion to his faith — and so do many of his constituents, he said.

“That’s the way I was raised,” Edwards said in an October episode of his monthly radio show. “I know that for many in the national party, on the national scene, that’s not a good fit. But I will tell you, here in Louisiana, I speak and meet with Democrats who are pro-life every single day.”

Yes, it would have been interesting to have heard more about how these “consistent life” Democrats apply their beliefs to political realities linked to immigration, gun control, the death penalty and a host of other “seamless garment” issues discussed in Catholic circles.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

In case of Catholic politician recovering from shooting, Washington Post ponders forgiveness

, , , , ,

What does it mean to forgive?

The Washington Post delves into that question — but maybe not as deeply as I’d like — in a story on a Republican leader who nearly died in the 2017 congressional baseball shooting.

The Post story has ties to an earlier case of forgiveness — involving a Louisiana congregation that was the victim of arson — that we recently highlighted here at GetReligion.

The lede on the latest piece is definitely compelling:

For nearly two years, Steve Scalise has tried to forgive.

For the bullet that tore through his pelvis. For all the surgeries. The months of missed work and the many grueling days of physical therapy. Scalise, the Republican House minority whip, has been trying to forgive the gunman who nearly killed him and injured several others in June 2017.

But he hasn’t been ready.

On Friday, though, Scalise said he was working on it.

The Louisiana lawmaker found a guide more than 1,000 miles southwest of the fractious U.S. Capitol on a recent trip to his home state.

Scalise and Vice President Pence traveled to Opelousas, La., a week ago to visit the pastors of three predominantly black churches that were burned down a month ago in a string of hate-fuelled arsons.

With the charred remains of his Mount Pleasant Baptist Church as a backdrop, Pastor Gerald Toussaint spoke of forgiveness. He forgave the suspect, a 21-year-old son of a local sheriff’s deputy, and members of his congregation did, too.

Keep reading, and the Post characterizes Scalise as “a devout Catholic” — whatever is meant by that terminology. Generally, we at GetReligion advocate that news reports offer specific details to illustrate that someone is “devout,” as opposed to using that label. Nonetheless, the obvious connotation is that Scalise is a committed person of faith for whom forgiveness would seem to be a part of expected religious practice.


Please respect our Commenting Policy