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?
To find anything about Bell, you have to look at Catholic publications or pro-life sites, such as this recent piece in Human Life Review. For those of you who don’t know her, Bell was arrested more than 100 times for blockading abortion clinics back in the 1980s. She’s the Martin Luther King of the pro-life movement as this old Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel story describes. Since then, she married in her 40s, birthed a daughter and adopted six special needs kids.
Lila Rose, the face of the pro-life millennial women, as this Atlantic video describes, has gotten a bit more ink. It has a cameo of Emma Green, their religion reporter, who obviously has been aware of Rose for some time. In 2019, Green wrote a profile on Rose, who was once known for appearing in undercover videos showing herself at Planned Parenthood clinics pretending to be a 13-year-old girl seeking an abortion after being impregnated by a much older boyfriend. Instead of looking into what was clearly statutory rape, the clinics covered it up. (Now in her 30s, Rose is married and the mother of a son).
But Rose is the exception. More typical are stories about brave abortionists who keep on doing their work despite threats to their lives such as this 2015 Washington Post piece and this 2019 piece, also in the Post. These stories are valid. But where are the corresponding stories on the other side of this national debate?
I suggest a story on John Bruchalski, an abortionist who traveled to Medjugorje (the place in Bosnia where six visionaries have claimed to have daily visitations with the Virgin Mary since 1981), changed his mind completely on the matter, embraced Catholicism and founded Tepeyac, a gynecological clinic in northern Virginia that specializes in minority communities. One of my regrets in my 14+ years of working at the Washington Times is that I never got to write about this place.
NEWS FLASH — The 40th anniversary of the Medjugorje apparitions is this coming June. Start researching those stories, folks.
(3) How about people forced to quit their jobs over medical conscience rights? Rod Dreher has written a lot about this not only here, but much more in more recent columns. It’s a huge issue but I’m not seeing any coverage.
(4) Who is keeping up with David Daleiden’s case after he secretly videotaped Planned Parenthood officials from 2013-2015 haggling over the cost of aborted fetal body parts? (Remember that “I want a Lamborghini” quote?) That story has dropped out of sight, even as Daleiden’s suit languishes with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Planned Parenthood keeps on charging him millions of dollars (it’s up to $15 million at this point) in legal fees?
Fox News has been following this story, and noting that prosecution of Daleiden was led by then-California Senator (and before that Attorney General) Kamala Harris. There’s near silence in the rest of the mainstream press. The Los Angeles Times should be on this far more than it is.
(5) Also, abortion pill reversal is a topic that hasn’t gotten heavy coverage. The idea behind it is that if you take the first part of an abortion pill ( mifepristone) but have second thoughts, you can take progesterone to reverse the procedure. Didn’t know about it?
Well, the coverage hasn’t exactly been huge. NPR has covered this more or less evenhandedly. The Washington Post published this piece in 2019 on its dangers but did not include one dissenting voice.
The New York Times Magazine did do a lengthy look at the reversal pill in this very religion-friendly 2017 piece written by then-Slate writer Ruth Graham (who has since joined the staff of the Times). The pattern I’m noticing is that when something decent is written, it’s often by religion writers who know people on both sides of abortion debates.
(6) Catholic hospitals taking over: This too get some ink but a lot more could be spilled. At the beginning of this month, I saw a piece in the Seattle Times about how the health system I’m part of is merging with a Catholic hospital system. Notice this:
Virginia Mason said it will remain a non-Catholic organization but announced a few changes.
“Nearly all procedures historically conducted at Virginia Mason will continue to be provided, with the exception of direct elective pregnancy terminations and Virginia Mason’s participation in physician-assisted death,” a spokesperson for Virginia Mason Franciscan Health said in an email.
The spokesperson said Virginia Mason in the past had performed a very limited number of abortions and did not participate in physician-assisted death at its hospital.
I knew there had to be a lot of gnashing of teeth on that one. Sure enough, I learned that one out out every six hospital beds in the country is in a Catholic institution (no abortion or euthanasia there, folks) and for Washington state, it’s 41% of all beds.
For a bluer than blue state like that one, that’s causing major angst. What are the national trends on this? MergerWatch has some information but again, I’m not seeing tons out there.
(7) The pro-lifers don’t care about babies after they are born myth: Although opponents are happy to state this lie, journalists should know that’s not true. But where are the stories? Catholic Relief Services alone pours millions of dollars into families post-birth and the much-maligned crisis pregnancy centers provide tons of diapers, cribs, clothing and other items. A CPC in northern Virginia helped me stock up after I adopted my daughter, so I personally know these services exist.
C’mon scribes, let’s do some investigating. For starters, compare a local CPC with a local Planned Parenthood clinic and see who provides the most help to families.
Those are seven ideas. The sad truth: The best kind of news features on the implications of abortion on American life are the sort of long-form pieces that most newspapers and websites don’t pay to have reporters do anymore.
Let’s adjust that: There are lots of narrative-style pieces out there, but one side of the abortion debate doesn’t appear in those places. That’s not for the lack of press releases sent us by groups opposing abortion. The reason is more a lack of will, a silent decision (the GetReligion term is “Kellerism”) that one side has a compelling story and the other doesn’t. This is what keeps the coverage of abortion on the week of Roe v. Wade tragically shallow.