It’s the same old, same old, so I promise I won’t take up much of your time with this.
But I did want to acknowledge — for those still paying attention to such things — the news late last week that the Trump administration will allow faith-based foster and adoption ministries to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Of course, that’s not the way you saw the story presented if you read it in a typical major media outlet.
Yes, as always, most mainstream news outlets treated this as a case of #discrimination — and not against the aforementioned religious charities.
Instead, this was the headline and subhead at the New York Times:
Adoption Groups Could Turn Away L.G.B.T. Families Under Proposed Rule
The Trump administration seeks to roll back an Obama-era rule that classified sexual orientation and gender identity as classes protected from discrimination.
The Washington Post put it like this:
Proposed HHS rule would strip Obama-era protections for LGBTQ individuals
Foster care and adoption groups that rely on federal grants would be allowed to refuse placement for gay, lesbian parents.
The quick, to-the-point take at The Associated Press:
Rule would let faith-based groups exclude LGBT parents
You get the idea about who those news organizations see as the victims in this scenario.
The Times — as is generally the case on hot-button culture war issues — makes little effort to hide its editorial stance in its news coverage:
A proposed rule by the Trump administration would allow foster care and adoption agencies to deny their services to L.G.B.T. families on faith-based grounds.
The proposal would have “enormous” effects and touch the lives of a large number of people, Denise Brogan-Kator, chief policy officer at Family Equality, an advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families, said on Saturday.
The Department of Health and Human Services on Friday released the proposed rule, which would roll back a 2016 discrimination regulation instituted by the administration of President Barack Obama that included sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.
Any organization — including foster care and adoption agencies or other entities that get department funding — is “now free to discriminate” if it wants to, Ms. Brogan-Kator said.
Not to worry, in the final two paragraphs of its story, the Times begrudging finally acknowledges another side of the story:
Tony Perkins, the president of Family Research Council, a group that supports socially conservative and Christian causes, said on Friday that the news was “tremendous” for children, birth moms and adoptive families.
“Thanks to President Trump, charities will be free to care for needy children and operate according to their religious beliefs and the reality that children do best in a home with a married mom and dad,” Mr. Perkins said in a statement.
Most of the other stories I read were similarly slanted to the left, albeit not as overwhelmingly so as the Old Gray Lady.
An exception was Kelsey Dallas’ Deseret News piece that declared, “Trump policy draws criticism, but will it help people of faith help people in need?”
Hey, I’m glad somebody decided to ask this question!
(Last year, I did a story for Religion News Service on what happens to the kids when adoption agencies can turn away gay parents. The answer is a bit more complex than the typical Times news story might lead you to believe.)
Meanwhile, here is a headline and subhead from today’s Wall Street Journal:
Trump Reverses Obama’s Anti-Religious Decree
No more discrimination against Catholics and evangelical Protestants in adoption services.
Before anyone complains that the Journal presentation sounds a bit opinionated itself, I should stress that the link goes to an editorial by Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. (This is the Journal’s news story, which tilts the other direction.)
In his piece, Moore suggests:
This is not a narrowing rule that excludes gay people and others from serving children. Instead, the regulation merely ensures that no one is kept from serving, while ending an attempt to stop religious organizations from doing so consistent with their convictions. It's a welcome statement that the child-welfare system is about the welfare of children—not proxy culture wars.
That certainly sounds like there is more than one side to this story. If only the major media outlets would tell it in a fair, balanced way. Until then, it’s the same old, same old.