As George Costanza once said, "it's not a lie if you believe it." While the folks at Fox might not believe what they're peddling, it's clear that they want their audience to do so. Thus, they provide them with Fox "facts" that are reinforced over a span of shows or sometimes within a show. In an effort to alienate Catholic voters over the Obama administration's new requirement for employer health plans to cover the cost of contraceptives, Fox takes a page from the playbook of the US Council of Catholic Bishops in its reporting,as fact, that this coverage includes abortion drugs. The problem here is that it isn't true; but that hasn't stopped Fox from repeating it four times. On Monday, not only did Megyn Kelly not correct her guest's statement about this; but she presented it, as fact, in a subsequent piece framed by another Fox fact - that Obama is "picking on" Catholics. While Fox is entitled to their opinion, they're not entitled to their facts which, in the case of the abortion pill, is anything but.
"Kelly's Court" began by framing the basic Fox agitprop that is the common thread in Fox's coverage of the requirement that the health plans of large religious institutions, like Catholic universities and hospitals, provide birth control with no co-payment which, not noted by Fox, some are already doing. She asked (LOL) if the Obama administration is "picking a fight" with the Catholic Church and reported that religious employees are required to provide free birth control, sterilizations, and the morning after pill. Her voice rising she said "some are vowing to pay the penalty instead of complying with the law." Fact Check - the "penalty" (assessments paid by employer) is also part of the law. She played part of her interview with Catholic League president and blowhard Bill Donohue when he bashed Obama for not respecting "conscience rights" of Catholics. The topic was then tossed to her two attorney guests, each of whom represented one side of the argument.
She quickly provided the money quote for the piece. She asked, her voice get louder and her eyes shooting daggers "How can it be consistent with the freedom of religion" "a Catholic hospital TO PROVIDE PILLS THAT LEAD TO ABORTION." Unfortunately, Mark Eiglarsh, who made the important point that the administration would argue that it's "putting women's rights first," didn't pick up on her, at best, misinformation and at worst, a lie.
FACT CHECK: The only pills that are covered under this policy are birth control pills and emergency contraception (Plan B) which is commonly known as the "morning after" birth control pill as it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the wall of the uterus. It is considered a birth control pill by the medical community and the FDA because they define pregnancy as beginning at implantation. Hence it's not an abortion inducing drug. If a woman is pregnant and she takes the pill, she will not abort. But because the Catholic Church believes that "life" begins at conception, they view it as an abortion drug. Real abortion drugs such as RU 486 ARE NOT COVERED under the policy. So if Megyn is claiming that these are abortion drugs, she's either claiming, as fact, what is Catholic theology or lying about the policy covering actual abortion drugs.
The coverage of the birth control mandate is a classic example of Fox driven propaganda. They take an issue and frame it as an outrage. They then present a mostly one sided, limited version and in so doing twist the facts to suit their right wing agenda which, in this case, is that Obama is "picking on" Catholics. A propaganda threefer is scored as not only do they get to bash Obama; but they feed into their carefully crafted meme of Christian persecution at the hands of the godless libruls and also solidify their "pro-life" viewership. Rather than present real fact,s they create their own version of reality in service of their politics. Fox News - "Fair & Balanced" as always!
Thanks for the admission of error…
You’ve helped make my case… I quote from this Wiki abstract:
“In practice, the Inquisition would not itself pronounce sentence, but handed over convicted heretics to secular authorities. The laws were inclusive of proscriptions against certain religious crimes (heresy, etc.), and the punishments included death by burning. Thus the inquisitors generally knew what would be the fate of anyone so remanded, and cannot be considered to have divorced the means of determining guilt from its effects.”
But having said this let’s be clear as the last sentence in this citation seems damning if taken without proper qualification. There is NO WHERE in official Catholic teaching (either doctrinal or dogmatic) that prescribes torture or capital punishment for convicted heretics. In fact you may find some authorities within the Church who encouraged such punishment as even today persons within Church heirarchy sin. My case is not that there are some who go against the faith (and sin) but precisely that the Catholic faith does not teach confronting one evil with another evil. Quite the opposite we are told by St. Paul to fight evil with love! Catholic moral theology teaches we cannot use an evil means to obtain a good end, or vice versa. The end, the means and the intent must all be good in order for the act to be good. Oh, and having said this it should also be brought out that the Catholic side of the Inquisition aquitted predominately more people of any crime than it convicted.
Furthermore, let’s take into account the purpose of fighting heresy as stated in this Wiki article: “… for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.” Notice, to “become terrified and weaned away from” any evil is the purpose of all good law! Thus coming back to the reason for this discussion… abortion should be illegal in relation to the law precisely because it is, as Mother Teresa said, “an unnecessary evil!” Likewise for sterilization and contraception which attack human life either by seeking to prevent conception or ending the life of a person already conceived. The public good, as with individual good, demands that we reject any civil law that encourages, endorses or worse, mandates an evil (as Obama Care will concerning contraceptives). Obama’s healthcare mandate has been endorsed by most proabortion advocates because it will enable our government, which has the legitimate power to coerse, to see that EVERYONE subscribes to an immoral use of abortificient and sterilizing drugs (despite conscience clauses). This is why the author Priscilla, goes to great lengths to deny the link between these inherent qualities and the birth control drugs themselves. She does so by moving the definition of viability from conception to implantation… a slight-of-hand used by anti-life advocates for years. It’s more scientifically palatable than calling a person in their fetal stage the “product of conception” or a “glob of tissue,” and less ambiguous than claiming this human life issue is simply about “choice” or “my body… my rights!”
Interesting claim but where are your “facts?” The Church forces who? …to do what? Oh, you mean the so-called Inquisition? Well, guess what, history shows it was Protestants, who in protesting against Church teaching, burned “witches” at the stake. Where it wasn’t Protestants who killed for their belief it was the state (spelled “government”), whom after the Church turned over those FEW it found guilty of heresy for punishment, were given capitol punishment by the state. The Church did not recommend this extreme and unjust punishment… let alone teach it. You cannot find it in Church teaching past or present… this is a fact! In fact while the Church teaches capitol punishment is not inherently evil when used appropiately, Pope John Paul II recommended a moritorium on the death penality because the modern prison system is capable of containing serious criminals safely. Also he realized it’s better for the murderer to remain in this life as long as possible in order to have a chance to turn to God and repent for his/her crime(s), and thus obtain eternal life!
As for the Church influencing the state with her moral teachings… let’s assume they’ve bowed out of the public discourse… then what? Will atheists stop pushing to reform society according to their mold? How about agnostics or the anti-religious (like Communists)? Then too what about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc…? Truth is there would be no vacuum of opinion if the secular dream of “the Church” ceasing to “interfere” in politics came true, this preventing the consequent law it influences. What there would be is a vacuum of sound moral understanding and in this case you get your Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, to name but a few anti-Christian ideologies that have come and gone. If you want a current example take a look Communist China with it’s FORCED “one child” policy. You won’t find the Church supporting that and in fact you will find it’s members in China (underground) teaching against it and being persecuted for this, often martyred!
So yes, as Priscilla suggests… let’s look at the facts! This idea of “church/state separation” you hint at is NOT in the Constitution nor is it in the Declaration. It has been foisted upon Americans by anti-religious “bigots” who desire to force their opinion on everyone else. It comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists taken out of context, exaggerated, and is a foreign idea even to the one who wrote this letter. The point remains the Church proposes abortion, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils because someone ALWAYS gets harmed by them. The Church doesn’t make American law but sure as the sun rises everyday has a right to voice opinion through it’s members who are legitimate American citizens… AMEN! So the question becomes will you deny this RIGHT to Catholic Americans? And if we do bully by “killing people” produce evidence, please!
So… in the mind of a Catholic… crossing church-state lines, trying to force the law in their favour, bullying people who disagree with them and killing people who can’t be bullied is “teaching”.
Suddenly your religion makes sense- you don’t confess your sins, because clearly the only sin you have is feeling sorry for doing it.
Let’s talk about facts! Our Declaration of Independence, which undergirds our Constitution, and without there would be no Constitution or United States of America, states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So the truth is our founders recognized a “higher power” along with “absolute truth” that is self-evident and unchangeable. In other words concepts that conform themselves to reality and that are non-negotiable! And notice the order… life comes first, for without life who cares about liberty or pursuit of anything, including healthcare?
With this in mind let’s look at the “facts” surrounding when human life begins and let’s not invoke theology. According to commonly accepted scientific teaching (in high schools and universities) every human being has the genetic makeup of their parents. Half their chromosomes come from the father (male), the other half from the mother (female). This genetic component is fully present at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg and so scientifically the matter necessary for a complete human person is present… and never changes, no matter how long a person lives. Therefore your choice, or anyone’s choice to place the beginning of human life at “implantation” is arbitrary and clearly goes against sound scientific dogma.
Now notice I used the term “dogma,” something those against protection of persons in the womb love to use against religious and moral (conscience) arguments. Science as a matter-of-fact is just as dogmatic and unyielding in it’s laws as any philosophy or theology. Furthermore scientists work to protect premature births in pregnany and every year they have been pushing back the point at which viability occurs. If medical professionals have their way they will eventually be able to prevent all cases of natural abortion from depriving the fetus of it’s life. In other words viability will become a moot point and as such choosing “implantation” as a starting point today will then be seen clearly as an arbitrary choice of those against human life, as well as of the Constitution/Declaration.
Finally, notice, the Catholic Church whom you and others continually cite as being in opposition to the commonly held opinion, which I add is in constant flux, do not force anyone to accept their teaching. The Church never imposes, instead it proposes as truth it’s teachings on faith and morals. In the latter case, the Church encourages the state (government) to listen closely and mold it’s laws in conformity to the real world of morality. To kill a living being is to kill the world over. To take the life of a 1 year old child who cannot live on it’s own is just as evil as taking the life of the preborn, or allowing them to die when one can preserve their life.
The fact is every known drug used as a contraceptive has the unintended quality of an abortifacient. As such it works not simply to prevent conception but can work to prevent implantation (cause a “mini-abortion”), and this is part of the reason the Church is against birth control. In a broader sense sterilization is a contraceptive that does not have this quality, yet the Church is still against it. Rather than seeking to heal or aid the natural function of a human being… sterilization and contraceptive drugs and devices seek to interfere. The purpose of human sexuality is two-fold, the unitive and procreative aspects, or in other words love and life. To deny this is to go against reality. It is to make the human person something less than what they are and as such an attack on their dignity. The secular culture you draw your sense of morality from thinks pleasure is the bottom line to human sexuality and is wrong. It is secondary and meant to give us desire to participate with “the Creator” in the privilege of populating our world. Therefore the Church teaches it is morally wrong to thwart the reproductive faculity of the human body just as it is wrong to not love. Catholics have been taught this from the inception of the Church and we even have a document called the Didache that dates back to 100AD. It taugh explicitly against abortion for the reasons above. The Church will never change it’s teaching on this subject because it is self-evident reality. Nor will the Catholic Church silence it’s voice in the public market of ideas, especially in a country that prides itself on freedom of expression and as the protector of human rights. Those are the facts!
Mandate? The Pope teaches… the Church doesn’t mandate anything… you’re confusing the government with the Church…
Did you know the gov’t mandates inflation and then lowers interest rates below the “free” market to compensate, sending false signals to consumers, causing a bubble, that eventually explodes! Get your facts straight dude!
age – 41
children – 2
By what means has Megyn avoided the Pope’s mandate for 7 to 9 children per family???
Give your slot to someone else and stick to those scripted debates on other people’s shows where you recite the law off a teleprompter to try looking intelligent.