Call To Die

Then [Jesus] said to them all, "If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me will save it. (Luke 9:23-24, HCSB)

My Photo

Follower of Christ, husband of Abby, member of Kosmosdale Baptist Church, and tutor/staff member at Sayers Classical Academy.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Confusion Can Kill

I am not one to usually write about a "left-wing conspiracy," but I have noticed a certain undeniable trend among journalists from major news outlets. In questions posed to the Republican candidates during the debates, and again in their coverage of the President's new insurance guidelines, it is abundantly clear that the main-stream media is dedicated to conflating the terms "contraception" and "abortion." In their treatment of these issues, members of the main-stream media demonstrate that-- either through ignorance or intent-- they are of one mind with pro-abortion advocates, who wish for the public to see abortion as just one more form of birth control.

Even when journalists from the main-stream media do make some distinction between abortion and contraception, they consistently make this distinction only in reference to abortion as a surgical procedure; overlooking the fact that abortions may also be chemically induced.

Note, for example, this week's "Friday News Roundup" on the Diane Rehm Show. As usual, Rehm directed a discussion about some of the most important issues in the news (this is why I always listen to at least the first 30 minutes of the Domestic Hour of the "News Roundup" each week), and she had a decent variety of panelists (Greg Ip of the Economist magazine, James Fallows of the Atlantic and Juan Williams of Fox News). But when they were discussing the Obama administration's new insurance policy, Rehm and each of her guests expressed surprise over the backlash the policy had received, saying more than once:

"We're not talking about abortion... we're talking about contraception."

And this sloppy distinction is made in other media outlets as well. But the truth is, some of the pills that journalists are calling "contraception" actually induce abortions. Contrary to what one may think from main-stream media news reports, not all pills are the same. Some birth control pills are designed to prevent the fertilization of the egg. Other birth control pills are designed to cause a woman's body to abort a fertilized egg before implantation. Both types of "birth control" would be covered under the President's mandate. This means that, at least as the directive was originally construed, religious medical centers would be required to distribute abortifacients.

We who are convinced that both science and our religion indicate that life begins at conception must work to maintain proper distinctions between abortion and contraceptives in general. We must further be willing and able to address the fact that some drugs that are called contraceptives are actually designed to induce abortions. We must insist on these distinctions in private conversations, in public forums (such as talk radio), and in political discourse (such as through letters to congressmen). A failure to maintain these distinctions will contribute to the further spread of government-sanctioned child murder in this land.



Post a Comment

<< Home