Robert Pear, writing in the New York Times on the 20th, discovers that conservative concerns about the rationing of health care, if reform should pass, are legitimate.
Wow, what will the Times think of next...maybe they can pursue actually investigating conservative concerns before publishing stories that rubber-stamp the White House line?
h/t Newsbusters
One of the best reporters I have ever talked to or worked with was Robin Toner, chief political reporter for the New York Times. She was professional and displayed a true sense of fairness when she covered the issues.
I never knew for certain where she fell personally in the spectrum of debate over abortion and that was the beauty of her skills as a journalist. The Washington Post offers (in my opinion) a short obituary on the life of a woman whose loss will be felt.
Please be sure to think of her husband, Boston Globe reporter Peter Gosselin, and her twins at this time. Her twins, a boy and a girl, are only eleven and will feel their mother's loss keenly.
Justin Taylor, over at Between Two Worlds, links to First Things for a response to the New York Times on Evangelicals and politics.
I was in college in the late 80s, early 90s. One of my chief complaints everytime some report came out about the "new" political activism of Evangelicals was that reporters failed to note that Evangelicals have been involved politically for a few centuries-- long before there was a Republican Party or a Democratic Party. During the 60s and 70s there was a great deal of civil unrest and, yes, many churches began to focus more on ministries and starting Christian schools. But that didn't make them less focused or less concerned about politics-- just less vocal. Jerry Falwell changed that with the Moral Majority. Unlike the Catholic Church, where there is a central figure (the Holy Father) who gives clear guidance on church teaching, evangelicals have no central figure to unite them behind moral issues. Jerry Falwell did that.
I grew up in a church where my pastor was personally involved in politics on the state and national level almost since day one. It was due to this and the influence of others in my church and university that I became politically active and informed. It is because of those influences, the experiences of friends and my commitment to the right to life that I worked for National Right to Life for ten years.
I don't think Evangelical concerns over various issues issues of the day is a bad thing. We've always worked to combat poverty and homelessness. Where I went to school, for example, the parent church of the university had one of the oldest, longest-running homeless shelters in the U.S.
Conserving our natural resources, for another example, is just plain good stewardship.
I do think that liberal ("progressive") pastors are wrong in trying to refocus what we find morally offensive. Environmental issues, for example, are not of equal concern with abortion. However, if a church maintains that abortion is wrong, works to combat abortion on demand while also working to decrease poverty or AIDS and focuses on spreading the Gospel in all of these approaches, more power to them.
It is when the Gospel is a feel-good add-on, poverty is the new evil and abortion is one of many "concerns" that I think we need to question the priorities and New Testament "evangelicalism" of that particular church.
Bob Herbert has an interesting op-ed in today's New York Times. Herbert also appeared on "Morning Joe" to discuss the op-ed.
I have to say that if you had asked me three months ago who was going to be the Democratic nominee I would have said-- without hesitation-- that it would be Barack Obama.
Now, I'm not so sure.
Pastor Wright seems to be Barack Obama's albatross and somehow the campaign needs to deal with it in a more realistic manner than they have so far.
Mr. Herbert is right-- this fiasco portrays Mr. Obama as weak which is not how a presidential candidate wants to appear.
I'm finishing up a project this afternoon and after that I'll be finishing up my LifeNews.com column which is on the New York Times fetal pain article. Unfortunately, we've had illness in the family for the last few days and that always rearranges schedules.
The Barack Obama Transcript has been delayed for the moment although it is still in the final stages of being checked. However, the person checking it for error is on deadline for other projects and has had to set it aside for the moment. I expect he should be able to continue working on it in a day or so. I'll post it and make it available as soon as we can verify that it is error free.
The New York Times editorial page ran an editorial today about the decline in the number of abortions. Using the numbers recently released by the Guttmacher Institute (which used to be the research arm of Planned Parenthood), the NYT argues that it's not pro-life educational programs or abstinence programs causing the decline. Instead, the Times argues, it's better access to contraception and better sex-education.
Well, that would mean fewer pregnancies in the first place.
However, the numbers Guttmacher released showed that the ratio of abortions is 22.4. This number represents the number of abortions for every 100 pregnancies that ended in abortion or live birth. The ratio has shown a significant decline consistent with the lower overall abortion numbers and the lower rate. Increased contraceptive use can't explain this away.
More and more women are rejecting abortion and it's not because they have better access to contraception. It's because they are listening to the message that their babies are alive and that abortion is not the answer to their problems. An increase in the number of crisis pregnancy centers and an increase in the use of ultrasound have greatly contributed. More and more states are enacting protective legislation as well.
We are finally seeing the results of years of hard work by pro-lifers.
Accept it NYT, the numbers can't lie.
Just when I think we've earned enough respect to at least be treated as a player in the world of the mainstream media, it sometimes throws a sucker punch to the pro-life movement.
The New York Times Fashion section ran an article Sunday about the lack of abortions in movies such as "Waitress" and "Knocked Up." Lamenting Hollywood's hesitancy to show "real-life women" who would seriously consider an abortion, the reporter, Mireya Navarro, writes at one point, "Many conservative bloggers have claimed 'Knocked Up' as an anti-choice movie, in part because the movie never presents abortion as a serious option."
Oooh, did you catch it? Right there-- "anti-choice."
Ouch.
NY Times editors may feel that the pro-life movement is "anti-choice" but the term doesn't belong on the pages of the Gray Lady. It is polemical and feeds into the pro-abortion side's desire to debate anything but abortion. It also, more importantly, defines us from the view of our opposition.
Now see, I can say "pro-abortion" because, as an opinion writer, I'm allowed.
The New York Times needs to issue a correction-- at the very least.
