One of the most important things that journalists get to do is pick the right words to describe complex situations, especially when defining what religious believers do or do not believe.
Thus, I have a question about the top two paragraphs in a Washington Post report by Christopher Lee about the work of the Bush White House’s choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Pay close attention, because here’s the lede:
Despite his work for a Christian pregnancy counseling group that opposes contraception, the physician who yesterday began overseeing federal family-planning programs has prescribed birth control for his patients, a Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman said.
And here are the two subsequent paragraphs:
Eric Keroack, a nationally known advocate of abstinence until marriage, served for more than a decade as medical director for A Woman’s Concern, a Massachusetts nonprofit group that discourages abortion and does not distribute information promoting birth control. But HHS spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday that most of Keroack’s professional time had been devoted to his private practice of 20 years, not the group.
“When he was in private practice as a doctor, he did prescribe birth control,” Pearson said. “And he did family planning with patients at their request as part of his private physician role.” She said Keroack has prescribed contraceptives for both married and unmarried women.
Now forget for a moment the issue of whether Keroack, as a private physician, prescribed contraceptives. Note that the work of A Woman’s Concern is described in two rather different — I would say inconsistent — ways.
In the lede we are told that this countercultural women’s center “opposes contraception.”
Then, in the second paragraph, we are told that the group “does not distribute information promoting birth control.”
Well, which is it? Does the center actively oppose contraception, which I would assume means that it attempts to convince women and men not to use contraception, or does it simply decline to actively provide information about how to obtain and use contraception? Is the group trying to remain silent on the issue?
And why would that be? I would assume A Woman’s Concern is a ministry that works with volunteers, donors and doctors who are Roman Catholic, as well as Protestant. In other words, the coalition that backs the center may include people who have a spectrum of different beliefs — a diversity of beliefs, even — on moral issues linked to birth control and when it should or should not be used.
The Roman Catholic Church heirarchy actively opposes contraception, although most American Catholics do not. Many Protestant groups do not oppose contraception, but many Protestants hesitate to urge the use of birth control by young people without the knowledge of their parents. There are a variety of other stances that modern pro-life Christians take on issues linked to contraception. Members of all of these groups are often active in the work of crisis pregnancy centers. These are ecumenical and, in some cases, interfaith coalitions.
I bring this up because there are signs — note this E.J. Dionne Jr. column — that Democrats, including some pro-life Democrats, are going to do everything they can to craft legislation that will allow them to be seen as opposing abortion without having to make any legislative compromises that might actively limit some abortions. In a way, I think this is a good thing, especially if it focuses more attention on the ways that poverty forces many women into abortions they do not want. It will be good to have public debate on these issues.
However, this is going to lead to complex debates about moral and religious issues linked to birth control, and I think it would be a good thing for journalists to realize that it will be important to accurately describe who believes what.
At the same time, it will be interesting to see if Democrats — as well as journalists — can find a way to work with conservative Roman Catholics and to let them remain active in public life. It’s hard to address issues of poverty and health care in North America without running into the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants who respect the Catholic Church.
 | Posted at 7:43 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (12) |
November 24, 2006, at 9:41 am
“At the same time, it will be interesting to see if Democrats — as well as journalists — can find a way to work with conservative Roman Catholics and to let them remain active in public life.”
Are the Democrats rounding them Conservative Catholics and shipping them all of to special “tollerance training camps” in Nebraska already? I didn’t think that was on the schedule till after Hillary got inagurated in 08…
Sorry, but since when did Democrats (and unelected journalists) get to decide who will and won’t be active in public life? Under the Constitution don’t even those wacky conservative Roman Catholics, (i.e. the one’s who haven’t sold their souls to the DNC and the NYT) still have the right to free speech, freedom of assocition, etc.?
Conservative Catholics can still be active in public life… just not as Democrats. That’s why this one is being appointed by Bush.
“that Democrats, including some pro-life Democrats, are going to do everything that they can to …to be seen as opposing abortion without having to … actively limit some abortions”
Gee… who’da thunk that would happen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24, 2006, at 9:46 am
Larry:
Here is my point. If Democrats are going to have the kind of broad coalition that helped them govern as a majority party, they will have to deal with practicing Roman Catholics (and Protestants who respect the Catholic church enough to coalition with it).
It seems that the HHS appointee is being scapegoated (is that a word?) for working with an ecumenical organization that includes Catholics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24, 2006, at 10:47 am
It’s all right up there on the page, isn’t it? The unspoken assumptions behind all the talk of tolerance and diversity and respect for difference - if you’re not actively voicing support for X, then you’re against it. You can’t just be silent or neutral, nor can it be a matter of genuinely thinking X to be not for the common good.
The centre does not distribute information regarding birth control = the centre opposes contraception.
You do not support same-sex marriage = you are homophobic.
You are Episocopalian = you are a superior enlightened being (at least, according to the new Presiding Bishop). It may be a little off topic, but I’d like to raise the recent remarks by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori in her “New York Times” interview. They have been the occasion of much making merry on Catholic blogs, but I’d love to see some Mormon comment on this (and also some general comment on the correlation she seems to be making that, the better-educated one is, the less use one has for theology - rather a significant statement for the head of a national religious body to make?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19WWLN_Q4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
“How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.
Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?
No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.”
Yeah, global warming, oil shortages, famine, and the like are all down to us iggnernt Catliks and them crazy Morgons!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24, 2006, at 12:07 pm
In response to Martha’s comment, I’ll be generous and assume that Solomon wasn’t saying that Catholics and Mormons are uneducated; I think she was saying that in general the uneducated have more children, and that in addition Catholics and Mormons have some theological basis for having larager families.
By the way, I’m not sure how true that is about Catholics (they may have theological reasons for opposing contraception, which is not quite the same as Solomon said). But it is true for Mormons, who believe that one of the reasons we’re on earth is to create families. That said, however, there is no LDS prohibition on birth control, and even abortion is permissible in many cases for Mormons where it wouldn’t be for Catholics. But the press is seldom fond of being award of the nuances among differences in belief.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24, 2006, at 11:46 am
… Make that being aware …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24, 2006, at 1:16 pm
“The Roman Catholic Church heirarchy (sic) actively opposes contraception, although most American Catholics do not.”
Why do these statement always go together in reporting. Why does the Church’s teaching on contraception always get this disclaimer. When church doctrines ignored by other denominations never get such a disclaimer. As if Christianity is a democracy where the popular opinion trumps Church teaching and theology. It seems to me that such disclaimers are ways to discredit what the Catholic Church teaches and are a form of editorial comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24, 2006, at 5:05 pm
What fascinates me is that there doesn’t seem to be any, for want of a better word, media consultant assisting the new Presiding Bishop. She may not mean things the way they come out sounding, but…
After all, it would be perfectly possible to answer that question simply as “Episcopalians tend to have smaller families” without dragging education into it. Can’t you just picture the little crinkling of the nose with which she uttered the icky word “theological”? And as regards the little swipe at us Papists, it’s positively reassuring in its familiarity, since Protestant grumbling about low-class Romanists breeding like rabbits has been going on for at least two centuries, but what did you lot ever do to her? Come on, ‘fess up: back when she was a marine scientist, she had a favourite octopus and some rotten no-good Mormon made calamari out of it, isn’t that it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 24, 2006, at 5:10 pm
Also, since her accession is being portrayed as evidence that the (sorry, make that The) Episcopalian Church is as inclusive as all get out, she should be coming across as worried that her congregation is made up of a specific slice of American society (upper middle class, white, well-off, university graduates) rather than pluming herself on the fact that they’re a cut above buttermilk. So, you’re *not* appealing to the great unwashed, Presiding Bishop? Why is that? And what are you going to do about it?
I think as well that this ties in with an earlier story on here; we don’t need to ask her for her opinion on the ‘Quiver Full’ movement, do we?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25, 2006, at 8:55 am
This has to be about the most asinine discussion I have seen in ages. Why is it that groups most opposed to birth control education are also the ones most opposed supporting the unexpected children of teenagers who make mistakes. It is so nice to see young women condemned to a life of poverty for a mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25, 2006, at 8:57 am
SEAN:
Explain please. In my experience, the religious groups that back crisis pregnancy centers are THE most active groups in ministry to young mothers of all kinds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 25, 2006, at 9:31 am
tmatt,
Oh I think you are right, when you say ” If Democrats are going to have the kind of broad coalition that helped them govern as a majority party, they will have to deal with practicing Roman Catholics (and Protestants who respect the Catholic church enough to coalition with it). ”
However, for the past 30 years they have avoided just that. I mean lets face it, that was the coalition that elected JFK and Tip O’Neal, and the current leadership of the DNC has spent their entire political careers destroying it. Don’t expect change overnight.
True, after 25 years of wondering about why the “Reagan Democrats” aren’t voting for them anymore, some of the people in the DNC have realized that being overtly anti-religious doesn’t sell well in mainstream America. (Duh!)
But I don’t think that is the same thing welcoming religion into the party… much less the halls of power. Its more along the lines of making an increased effort to patronize religious voters. I think the DNC envisions something like the Congressional Black Caucus, only for religous people. Some patronage jobs in the beltway, “safe” districts, lots of photo-ops and invitations, occasionally the powerful Dems will show up at your events, some pork for the folks back home, and you get to go on CNN a lot to “speak for your community”, but absolutely no real power.
You are also right when you say “It seems that the HHS appointee is being scapegoated (is that a word?) for working with an ecumenical organization that includes Catholics.” What I think you miss the true depth of hatred the left has for the pro-Life movement.
Remember, push come to shove the Democratic Party is ALL about abortion. The “Women’s Rights” movement is about “Abortion Rights” and that’s all. They scream that women don’t get respect and are not just sex objects, but have had a long term alliance with Hugh Hefner because he’s strongly pro-abortion; and they chose to abandon ALL its other principles and all shreds of credibility to back Bill “I sexually abuse my interns” Clinton, because he was rock soid pro-abortion.
Why is the DNC all about abortion? Think, we have had something like 40,000,000 abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade. That means there are millions of adults that have been involved in murdering of a child. Everything from having the abortion, to pressuring their girlfriend/daughter/wife to have an abortion, to paying for the abortion, to helping people have abortions, to performing the abortions.
People don’t like to be reminded that they are baby killers. It is an emotionally unplesant experience. It makes them feel guilty and ashamed and uncomfortable.
The line used to be “It’s not really a person”… then sonogram technology came along and that argument sort of fell apart… (though the California legislature did quietly ban the private posession of sonogram machines, I’ve often wondered why…).
In any case, as long as abortion is still legal people who have been involved in abortions can maintain the mental fiction that their abortion is “OK”. (I mean it’s LEGAL right? so it MUST be OK if it is LEGAL. It doesn’t make me a bad person if it is LEGAL….)
Any move to ban, or limit, or make abortion illegal threatens that mental fiction. The thought process runs something like “If abortion ISN’T “O.K.” anymore then maybe it is as bad as those nasty pro-Lifer’s say, and maybe I AM a bad person…maybe I DID kill my baby…”
That is a very emotionally uncomfortable place to go, and people will do ANYTHING to keep from going there.
Even loose elections.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 27, 2006, at 1:20 am
Another Washington Post article from a few days earlier, also by Christopher Lee, adds a clarifying detail from the organization’s website:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0