Time mag myth, “The Catholic crusade against a mythical abortion bill”
The other day (yesterday?) Jasper posted the title of a new Time magazine piece, “The Catholic crusade against a mythical abortion bill,” which was a disgraceful, pathetic attempt by spinner Amy Sullivan to downplay the reality of the Freedom of Choice Act while portraying Catholics as overreactive for launching a fight against FOCA.
There were so many things wrong with the article I didn’t know where to begin dissecting it, not the least of which was Sullivan failed to mention until the 10th paragraph that then-candidate Barack Obama stated at a 2007 Planned Parenthood fundraiser that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”
So I hoped my friend Matthew Balan at Newsbusters would take over and dissect Sullivan’s trash. And Balan has come through. Thanks, Matt.
[Photo courtesy of Time]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’ve read this ‘article’ and was so upset with it. The author clearly is not looking at both sides of the abortion issue, I pray that one day she will see the true light of the abortion issue.
Many who support abortion are blind to the truth.
Amy Sullivan is technically correct, FOCA has not been introduced…yet. She then goes on to reveal her substantial ignorance of the political dynamics that have led us to this precipice.
Just a simple observation: Who among us that have followed this issue for years have the slightest doubt that the Obama administration is not only pro-abortion, but if given the chance would seek to dramatically expand access to abortion, up to and including taxpayer funding?
One quibble we might hear about the above is the canard that no one is pro-abortion, but only pro-choice. Right. I digress, but the point is that for Time Magazine, which is well known for pro-abortion advocacy to come out with such a pithy little argument that FOCA is not on the horizon suggests that either they know that the pre-emptive strike coordinated by the Bishops has cooled the ardor of the bill’s promoters, or that
they are so poorly informed about what is going on with the issue so as to believe there is no chance that FOCA would be introduced in this congress.
Such is what passes for journalism in the MSM.
Speaking of TIME, did anyone see my letter to the editor, published in the Feb. 23 issue? [bats eyes adorably]
That’s Erik, Rock for Life!
How long did it take for Pelosi and her cronies to write and pass the 1,100 page Swindle-us package? A couple of weeks? It doesn’t matter if FOCA is currently being debated in Congress or not. The fact of the matter is that OBAMA PROMISED TO SIGN IT INTO LAW and Pelosi and Reid could have it up for a vote in the House and Senate at any time.
It was a good idea NOT to wait while to speak out while they were focaing around. The Catholic church is getting to been doing a lot more praying and speaking out openly about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. And I love to hearing it during Sunday services.
What Ms. Sullivan fails to understand or acknowledge is that OF COURSE Obama is not going to stand up, wave a piece of paper, and say, “Hey everybody! I’ve got FOCA here, somebody give me a pen!”
How do I know? First, look at how he undid the Mexico City Policy. On a quiet Friday afternoon, conveniently the day after Roe v. Wade anniversary, no adoring press flashing their cameras in his face. Cowardice.
Second reason: He knows that he got 54% of the Catholic vote, the Catholics that voted their wallets as opposed to their faith. He may not want to risk their indignation.
Third reason: he actively avoided the Born Alive issue during the campaign. He managed to pull a fast one on gullible catholic professors and Evangelical pastors by posting his Matthew 25 website, claiming he really is pro-life after all.
Fourth reason: if our lawmakers have been inundated with these “preemptive” white postcards from every Catholic parish in their jurisdictions, we’re looking at thousands upon thousands of petitions, something they shouldn’t ignore.
The more likely scenario, Ms. Sullivan, is the one detailed by the Thomas More Society. The legislation will slip in bits and pieces under bills that in all likelihood have nothing to do with abortion.
Kind of like this Stimulus Bill slipping in tens of millions of dollars for saving swamp mice in California, which has everyting to do with saving the economy, don’t ya know.
I wouldn’t have completely put the blame squarely on O’s haughty PP promise speech. The bishops have a lot of damage control to cover, since Catholics “voted their conscience”.
The Time article merely notes the fact that FOCA is not likely to even be introduced, much less go to any vote in the forseeable future.
The Church and the far right wing always have to manufacture new “threats” to get attention and keep the money flowing in. The current phony “threats” include FOCA and the Fairness Doctrine.
re: Krystal at February 20, 2009 5:40 PM
When the anti-choice press gives abortion, contraception and family planning a fair shake, then you can complain.
How does the threat of FOCA generate income for the Church?
YLT~
Wasn’t complaining, just stating my feelings on this article.
So nice to live in a ‘free speech’ country….er…right?