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!”