A lot of liberal media bias boils down to word choice and the loaded connotations they can bring in service of a liberal slant. The headline for a November 11 Baltimore Sun story about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was no different.
"Bishop denounces U.S. abortion rights" read the loaded headline, which evokes in readers the sense of a stern cleric inveighing against a "woman's right to choose" rather than concerned clergy worried about the loss of life and trauma to pregnant mothers caused by abortion.
The article itself gave a more nuanced portrait than the stark headline announced, reporting that Francis Cardinal George expressed his concern in terms of the incoming Obama administration's record on "social justice" and "universal human rights":
BALTIMORE - The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, opening a national church meeting yesterday, said that continued support for abortion rights will undermine any advances in social justice that come from a new president and Congress.
Chicago Cardinal Francis George said that "we must all rejoice" that an African-American will be in the White House for the first time in a country that "once enshrined slavery" in law.
But he said the nation still violates what he called universal human rights by keeping abortion legal. In a later news conference, George said bishops are preparing to lobby the next administration on any policies that diverge from Catholic teaching on marriage, abortion and other issues.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What abortion right??!!!
November 11, 2008 - 15:22 ET by c5thenAll there is, is a flawed and tortured Supreme Court decision in the Roe v Wade case that talks about the "right to privacy" as the foundation for the unrestricted availability of a particular medical proceedure.
There is no "Right" to kill another human just as there is no "Right" to own another human.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
I find it funny that how
November 11, 2008 - 17:27 ET by andophiroxiaI find it funny that how Roe v. Wade determines what every American wants.
However, they don't want it to be held with popular vote. Wow, if they're so right I wonder why they won't?
Speaks volumes to me.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill
Until ...
November 11, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Southern voterUntil each American can look at this video without clicking off then we can talk about CHOICE.... http://www.durarealidad.com
Until every women faced with abortion can see not only an ultra sound of her baby or the pictures of what an abortion will do to her baby we won't be able to move forward...
Until America can see abortion, America will not reject abortion
(Fr Frank Pavone , Priest for Life)
So depressed - listening to Rush about Freedom of Choice Act
November 11, 2008 - 15:44 ET by Dee BunkWe have no power to stop it. No amount of pro-life pressure is going to compete with Obama's e-mail list that will threaten then Dems in congress with massive e-mails threatening funding and there are not enough Republicans to stop it.
He also reminded about the many judicial appointments that have been stalled for 3 yrs by Democrats. Obama will already have two terms worth of appointments in his first term.
Dee Bunk .. not true
November 11, 2008 - 15:47 ET by LionKing10th Amendment grants rights to states. Do you remember the Defense of Marriage Act? -- It did not stop states from allowing "Gay Marriages".
It is the same with FOCA...it can be superceded at a state level.
Lion King: DOMA vs FOCA
November 11, 2008 - 16:17 ET by sdbThe Defense of Marriage Act ensures states rights by saying that no state is required to recognize a marriage license issued by another state. The Freedom of Choice act strips away states rights by disallowing any restrictions on abortion greater than that imposed at the federal level. Under DOMA, states are allowed to define their own laws on marriage. Under FOCA, states will not be allowed the same with regard to abortion.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
DOMA
November 11, 2008 - 16:26 ET by LionKingEstablished a Federal definiton of marriage. They knew that it was limited with respect to that.
LionKing -This is different than the Defense of Marriage Act
November 11, 2008 - 16:29 ET by Dee Bunkthat act specifically said states could do what they wanted and make their own marriage laws.
The Freedom of Choice act does the opposite. It says:
"This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance,
regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other
action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date
of enactment of this Act."\
No restrictions on abortion would be allowed without the "health of the mother" exception which renders any restriction meaningless. Depression would fall under "health of the mother"
Of course if this act were to pass - it SHOULD be struck down by the SCOTUS but there are enough judges already that don't recognize states rights so it could be upheld. It surely will be upheld with a couple Obama picks.
Dee Bunk
November 11, 2008 - 16:32 ET by LionKingRead the 10th Amendment.
I know LionKing - but liberal judges don't recognize
November 11, 2008 - 16:37 ET by Dee Bunkthe Constitution if it disagrees with their agenda. The Constitution will be pretty much irrelevant after a few Obama picks.
there is another way to avert abortion
November 11, 2008 - 17:19 ET by LionKingI am morphing into a liberal...done!
I propose creating an excise tax on abortions ... $10,000 per abortion. These funds could be used to educate how to avoid needing an abortion, other options to abortions, and assist with adoption costs. This is NOT banning anything and the Feds cannot interfere with a state's right to TAX.
Morphing back...phewwww!!!
Delete
November 11, 2008 - 16:34 ET by Dee Bunkdouble
Can't tell the future
November 11, 2008 - 17:30 ET by andophiroxiaEven though Rush is very insightful and optimistic in general, I'm not adopting this doom and gloom approach.
Yes, we may not be able to stop eveyrthing that goes through--but remember when Bush and everyone wanted to ram through that Amnesty Bill? They were ready to do it and there was enough screaming and crying to have them stop. He was ready to get Harriet Meiers through and well, that didn't go through either.
We people do have a voice and we can scream real loud too.
Also, who knows what will happen in the future? Sure, we can project what we know now, but we have no idea how stuff will HAPPEN.
We do have the power, giving up, then Obama's won.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill
Language
November 11, 2008 - 15:53 ET by KC MulvilleYou can't oppose a right - that's what makes it a right. But you can oppose the notion that something is a right in the first place.
You also have to make a distinction between a moral right and a legal right. A moral right comes from a number of sources, and cannot change. But a legal right comes simply from a majority of votes, and if you present your case more persuasively, the next election can change the legal status of "rights."
However, the headline is obfuscation. The headline embeds the unspoken assumption that a legal right must be respected as a moral right. And so, the headline is trying to prevent you from opposing abortion legal rights by clouding it as a moral right, and then criticizing the bishops for opposing morality.
I doubt the journalists have the philosophical tools to make those distinctions. They just have it all muddled up in their head, and these distinctions all come out as media sausage.
A "Woman's Right to Choose"
November 11, 2008 - 17:15 ET by ledurchiA "Woman's Right to Choose" in regard to "Abortion Rights" seems to be akin to a 1850's southern plantation owner's "property rights" as it relates to slavery. Attributing a "right" to morally abject behavior does not make it less immoral, it just makes it sound better.
An honest journalist would have to describe this newfound right as a woman's and physician's right to slaughter innocent babies. Don't hold your breath waiting for that,