Supreme Court

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

Pro-abortion rights activists hit Catholic churches, but you probably didn't read about it

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pro-abortion rights activists hit Catholic churches, but you probably didn't read about it

If there was ever a doubt that Americans are living in two, separate news universes, then the past two weeks certainly crystallized that reality even more than the polarizing presidential elections of 2016 and 2020.

Americans who lean left politically, comfortable with reading just The New York Times or Washington Post, have been treated to apocalyptic news stories and opinion pieces — it is often hard to tell which is which — stemming from the leak of the draft decision that could overturn Roe v. Wade.

Did you know that gay marriage is now at risk? Did you know that this incarnation of the U.S. Supreme Court is illegitimate? For these elite news organizations and their readers, reversing the right to abortion is just the first attack by fascist Republicans — you wait and see.

On the right, conservatives who watch opinion shows on Fox News Channel or read Brietbart can’t get enough of how President Joe Biden has been an abject failure, particularly when it comes to inflation.

Have you seen how high gas prices are? Did you read about the baby formula shortage? To those news organizations, it’s all about fixing these problems by “owning the libs” by getting the GOP in control of the House and Senate in the November midterm elections.

I have friends on both sides of the political aisle and it’s shocking to me how much one side doesn’t know about what the other is reading and thinking. It often takes weeks for stories that one side repeatedly reported on to ever make it into the pages and onto screens of the other side.

It’s not a failure of our politics. Those have always been polarized. This is a failure of journalism.

Let me explain how these two news universes (while great for the bottom line of news organizations catering to their bases) led to a major news story being totally ignored by many mainstream news sites.

The protests — deemed an issue with “a lot of passion” by the White House — over abortion spilled over into houses of worship, especially Catholic churches. Is the First Amendment right to protest on private property more important than freedom of religion? Not according to the Constitution, and that’s what the news media should be concerned with reporting, not with managing narratives.

It’s therefore not a surprise that pro-abortion rights folks protesting outside churches — and in some cases disrupting Mass — received little to no coverage in most mainstream national news organizations.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Political reporter says journalism has made him a better Christian. He's not alone

, , , , , ,
Political reporter says journalism has made him a better Christian. He's not alone

Say what?

Jon Ward, chief national correspondent for Yahoo! News, writes in an essay for Christianity Today that his profession has made him a better Christian.

Ward knows many of his fellow Christians may find that hard to believe:

Conservative Christians are far more hostile toward the media now than they were when I was growing up. Some of my own family members have told me I should be ashamed of myself for doing my job. In fact, most people don’t like the media — and that’s bad for society. The media shares some of the blame for that, as I’ve written recently for Yahoo! News.

But he explains the profession’s role in his own life:

Journalism has empowered many of the most noble, the most Christian elements of my character. I have been discipled for two decades in how to discern what is true and false, and — probably more importantly — how to discern when there are no easy answers or solutions. I have been trained in pursuing truth without regard to whom it offends.

I have also been given a sense of humility about what we can know for sure and how often we need to acknowledge that our point of view is limited and incomplete. This is sometimes called “epistemological modesty,” and it is a quality that we badly need more of in our discourse.

Hey dude, you’re preaching to the choir.

Seriously, I authored a recent Christian Chronicle editorial that focused on the faith of one of my journalistic heroes: Jerry Mitchell, a Mississippi investigative reporter whose stories helped put four Klansmen and a serial killer behind bars.

From that editorial:

Mitchell recalled that a radio show host asked him once, “How can you be a Christian and a journalist?”


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

Catholic doctrine has always rejected abortion: But what about Catholics in pews today?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic doctrine has always rejected abortion: But what about Catholics in pews today?

It may be the most important U.S. Supreme Court decision of the last fifty years.

A leaked draft of a majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would effectively dismantle the legal framework around abortion that was established in the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade. In its wake, states would have almost complete freedom to regulate abortion however they saw fit, including enacting a total prohibition.

Among those who study American religion and politics, it’s long been established that the earliest political voices seeking to restrict access to an abortion were members of the Catholic Church. For centuries, the catechism has taught that life should be protected at all stages — from conception to natural death. Thus, the tens of millions of American Catholics should be the standard bearers for the pro-life movement in the United States.

But here is an important question for journalists: Will most Catholics applaud the end of Roe? The data tells a nuanced story about how the average Catholic thinks about the issue of abortion access. As always, it’s important to note if polls pay any attention to how often Catholics attend Mass.

Looking back to the time period immediately after the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, it’s clear that the vast majority of Catholics were not comfortable with the concept of a woman obtaining an abortion for any reason, which not was out of step with how the average American felt.

For instance, in 1985 about 35% of Catholics were in favor of abortion demand. It was 39% of the general public. In the 1990s and 2000s, abortion opinion was relatively stable, but then things began to shift in 2010. From that point forward, the share of Catholics who supported abortion began to rise, which paralleled a shift in the overall opinion of the American public.

By 2021, fifty-three percent of Americans supported abortion on demand along with forty-five percent of Catholics. But, it’s worth noting that the contours of the two lines run in almost perfect unison. As the country moved left on abortion, so did the average Catholic.


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

Podcast: A growing post-Roe divide between 'Jesusland' and the 'United States of Canada'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: A growing post-Roe divide between 'Jesusland' and the 'United States of Canada'?

Over the past week or so, I have received several emails — while noticing similar messages on Twitter — from people asking: “Why is The Atlantic publishing the same story over and over?” Some people ask the same question about The New York Times.

It’s not the same SPECIFIC story over and over, of course. But we are talking about stories with the same basic Big Idea, usually framed in the same way. In other words, it’s kind of a cookie-cutter approach.

The key word is “division,” as in America is getting more and more divided or American evangelicalism is getting more and more divided. A new Ronald Brownstein essay of this kind at The Atlantic — “America’s Blue-Red Divide Is About to Get Starker” — provided the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The villains in these dramas are, of course, White evangelicals or, in more nuanced reporting, a radical wing of the White evangelicals. Just this week, I praised the New York Times for running a feature that offered a variation on one of these templates: “Bravo! The New York Times reports that evangelicals are divided, not united on politics.” That piece showed progress, in part, because it undercut the myth of the evangelical political monolith on issues such as Donald Trump, COVID vaccines, QAnon, etc.

Let me make this personal. There is a reason that all of these stories written by journalists and blue-checkmark Twitter stars sound a big familiar to me. You see, people who have been paying attention know that the great “Jesusland” v. the “United States of Canada” divide is actually at least three decades old. It’s getting more obvious, methinks, because of the flamethrower social-media culture that shapes everything,

So let’s take a journey and connect a few themes in this drama, including summary statements by some important scribes. The goal is to collect the dots and the, at the end, we’ll look at how some of these ideas show up in that new leaning-left analysis at The Atlantic.

First, there is the column I wrote in 1998, when marking the 10th anniversary of “On Religion” being syndicated (as opposed to the 33rd anniversary the other day). Here’s the key chunk of that:

… In 1986, a sociologist of religion had an epiphany while serving as a witness in a church-state case in Mobile, Ala.


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

While polls show ambivalence, SCOTUS striking down Roe would let each state decide

, , , , , , ,
While polls show ambivalence, SCOTUS striking down Roe would let each state decide

According to the Gallup Poll, 49% of American adults called themselves "pro-choice" last year versus 47% "pro-life," with the second designation chosen by 73% of those who attend worship weekly and 74% of Republicans.

The over-all population posted the same virtual tie in each of the prior three years. Journalists, by the way, should note that Gallup's question defied the widely-followed Associated Press Stylebook, which despite some criticism rejects both of those familiar labels in favor of "abortion-rights" versus "anti-abortion" while disallowing "pro-abortion."

After last week's leak to Politico of a Supreme Court draft opinion that would return abortion policy-making to each state, the Pew Research Center (media contact 202-419-4372) released poll results that are vitally important for media analysis.

Here’s where the stories will be found: The Pew team warns against Gallup's two-sided breakdown above, since "relatively few" Americans "take an absolutist view" for or against legality in all circumstances.

Much ambivalence is evident. Fully 33% of Pew respondents believed that whether to abort should "belong solely to the pregnant woman" (and 72% among Americans over-all) AND at the same time believed that "human life begins at conception so a fetus is a person with rights" (held by a 56% majority of Americans).

The Pew data fill a 78-page report, titled "America's Abortion Quandary." As typical with Pew, the new survey stands out for the precision and variety of questions, special skill in defining religious sectors (though this project does not distinguish between Hispanic and non-Hispanic Catholics), the huge sample of 10,441 (compared with 1,016 for that Gallup poll) and consequently a remarkably high response rate of 89% among members of Pew's ongoing American Trends Panel.

Another technical note on polls. Regarding political races they are often more accurate on the national level than with state races. And the Supreme Court draft indicates abortion policy will be returned to each individual state — so that's where legal and political fireworks will occur unless efforts in Congress succeed.


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

Bravo! The New York Times reports that evangelicals are divided, not united on politics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Bravo! The New York Times reports that evangelicals are divided, not united on politics

If you stop and think about it, the latest New York Times feature about those dreaded White evangelicals includes a few signs of progress.

The good news is that the story focuses on the many ways White American evangelicals are divided, these days. That’s progress, since it undercuts the dominant news narrative of the years since 2016. You know the one: That White evangelicals from sea to shining sea just love Donald Trump and that’s that.

The truth was always more complex than that, but many blue-checkmark experts on Twitter really needed someone to blame for Trump. White evangelicals were the answer, of course, since it would have required a great deal of introspection to blame the Democratic Party for nominating Hillary Clinton — perhaps the only opponent that scared millions of depressed Americans more than Trump.

But back to the key truth in this Times report — which is that White evangelicals are divided, which is true, and that is certainly not the same thing as the myth of monolithic unity. For background, see this 2018 post: “Complex realities hidden in '81 percent of evangelicals' love Trump myth.”

At the heart of this story is a character that will be familiar to some news consumers — a conservative religious leader whose beliefs would normally cause heart attacks in blue-zip-code newsrooms, but this leader is shown to deserve sympathy because believers who are much worse are attacking him/her. (The irony in this case is that this particular pastor seems very familiar to me since he appears to represent the evangelicalism in which I was raised and that I greatly respect.)

The headline: “As a ‘Seismic Shift’ Fractures Evangelicals, an Arkansas Pastor Leaves Home.” Here’s the overture:

FORT SMITH, Ark. — In the fall of 2020, Kevin Thompson delivered a sermon about the gentleness of God. At one point, he drew a quick contrast between a loving, accessible God and remote, inaccessible celebrities. Speaking without notes, his Bible in his hand, he reached for a few easy examples: Oprah, Jay-Z, Tom Hanks.

Mr. Thompson could not tell how his sermon was received. The church he led had only recently returned to meeting in person. Attendance was sparse, and it was hard to appreciate if his jokes were landing, or if his congregation — with family groups spaced three seats apart, and others watching online — remained engaged.

So he was caught off guard when two church members expressed alarm about the passing reference to Mr. Hanks.


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

Ordinary protests at doxxed SCOTUS homes, Masses and a generic firebomb, as well

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ordinary protests at doxxed SCOTUS homes, Masses and a generic firebomb, as well

The Roe v. Wade related events of the past three or four days have created a very obvious case study that can be stashed into that ongoing “mirror image” case file here at GetReligion.

Start here. Let’s say that, during the days of the Donald Trump White House, something important happened related to LGBTQ rights — something like a U.S. Supreme Court decision that delivered a major victory to the trans community. At that point, some wild people on the far cultural right published the home addresses of the justices that backed the decision and, maybe, even any hospital that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might be visiting for cancer treatments.

Another group, let’s call it “Bork Sent Us,” announces plans for protests at Episcopal Church parishes because of that denomination’s outspoken support for LGBTQ causes. Some protestors promise to invade sanctuaries and violate the bread and wine used in the Holy Eucharist. Along the way, what if someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood facility?

Obviously, Trump’s press secretary would be asked to condemn this madness, including violations of a federal law against intimidating protests at the homes of judges.

Let’s set that aside for a moment. I want to ask a “mirror image” journalism question: Would this be treated as a major news story in elite media on both sides of our divided nation and, thus, divided media? Would this, at the very least, deserve a story or two that made it into the basic Associated Press summary of the major news stories of the weekend?

Let me say that these events would have deserved waves of digital ink, with good cause.

This brings us, of course, to the leaked copy of a draft of a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that points to a potential 5-3-1 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Twitter users may know many of the details of the anger this has unleashed in mass media and among Sexual Revolution clergy, both secular and sacred. There has been some coverage, including (#DUH) at Fox News. A sample on the church angle:

The White House on Sunday defended people's "fundamental right to protest" but warned against efforts to "intimidate" others during pro-abortion protests planned at Catholic churches across the country.

Multiple activist groups are planning protests defending abortion rights outside Catholic churches on Mother's Day and the following Sunday after a draft opinion from the Supreme Court threatened to overturn Roe v. Wade.


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

No way around it: Bombshell Roe v. Wade leak was the religion story of the week

, , , , , , , , , ,
No way around it: Bombshell Roe v. Wade leak was the religion story of the week

News that the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority might overturn Roe v. Wade is not overly shocking. We’ve known that for months.

But the timing — and manner — of this week’s leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion that would strike down the landmark 1973 decision, which legalized abortion nationwide? That counts as a bombshell.

To discuss the big scoop by Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, ReligionUnplugged.com convened a panel of top religion journalists who have written extensively about the abortion debate. Click here to watch the discussion.

Clemente Lisi and I moderated the panel. Lisi, who teaches journalism at The King’s College in New York, is a ReligionUnplugged.com senior editor and a veteran GetReligion writer who focuses on Catholic news for both websites. The panelists were:

• Adelle Banks, Religion News Service production editor and national reporter (see “If Roe goes, Black church leaders expect renewed energy for elections”).

• Kelsey Dallas, Deseret News religion reporter and associate national editor (see “As some rallied over Roe v. Wade, these Christians prayed”).

• BeLynn Hollers, Dallas Morning News reporter who covers women’s health, politics and religion (see her coverage of Texas’ restrictive abortion law).

• And Kate Shellnutt, Christianity Today senior news editor (see “This is and isn’t the moment pro-life evangelicals have waited for”).

Among the tantalizing questions the panel explored: Is the abortion debate a religion story?

Yes and no, Hollers said.

Yes, Dallas said. “But maybe not for the reasons people might assume,” she quickly added.


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

Podcast: About post-Roe politics and Biden's evolving doctrines on choosing to 'abort a child'

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: About post-Roe politics and Biden's evolving doctrines on choosing to 'abort a child'

Once upon a time, Sen. Joe Biden was almost a pro-life Catholic Democrat.

This may be the reason — as journalists frequently note — that he seems uncomfortable saying “abortion” in public remarks. Then again, he may also have private polling numbers on the muddled state of public opinion in which millions of Americans, including lots of Democrats, (a) oppose the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade, yet (b) are also in favor of European-style restrictions on abortion that have been blocked by U.S. courts because of legal logic built on Roe.

As is so often the case, Americans want it both ways and it’s rare for the mainstream press to note the tensions in that stance, since that would require balanced coverage of debates about Roe.

Back to Biden and a must-read Washington Post political feature that served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). After spending much of his career somewhere in the middle on abortion, Biden now leads a Democratic Party that has veered so far to the cultural left that it champions third-trimester abortion (and even efforts to save the life of a baby born during a botched abortion).

That stance is hard to square with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as lots of opinion polls, especially in states that will — if what appears to be a 5-3-1 SCOTUS verdict against Roe survives a blitz of elite media scorn — face debates about centrist laws to restrict, but not ban, abortion on demand.

Here is the top of the Post report, and readers are urged to spot a major abortion-talk stumble from Biden:

Joe Biden became a senator in 1973, just 17 days before the Supreme Court decided the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade. Soon after, the young senator, a practicing Catholic, told an interviewer that he disagreed with the decision and that he had views on such matters that made him “about as liberal as your grandmother.”

“I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far,” he concluded in 1974. “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

Nearly a half-century later, with Biden evolving along with his party on the issue of abortion rights, he again declared the court was moving too far — this time, he argued, in the opposite direction.

“The idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard,” Biden said on Tuesday in reaction to a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion proposing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Note that the Post editors, as opposed to some other elite media sources, used that quote in which Biden spoke words — “abort a child,” as opposed to a “fetus” — long banned in public-relations efforts for a pro-abortion-rights stance. I took that as a sign to keep reading.


Please respect our Commenting Policy