On abortion, on homosexuality and on abuse, the mainstream media has it in for the Catholic Church

Telegraph ^ | December 7, 2012 | Tim Stanley

[NYer]

People wonder why conservatives moan endlessly about what they label “the mainstream media”. One reason is that it often displays a subconscious prejudice against religion. Catholics, for example, are sometimes presented as misogynistic cultists with the blood of millions on their hands. To anyone who occasionally attends Mass, this can come off as rather insulting. Sorry, but we’re sensitive that way.

Take the tragic case of Savita Halappanavar, who died earlier this year in a hospital in Galway, Ireland. Here’s how The Guardian reported the story:

Ireland's near-total ban on abortion has come under renewed scrutiny amid an outcry over the death of a woman who was denied a termination. Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist, died of blood poisoning at Galway University hospital. She had turned up at the hospital a week earlier, but was denied a medical termination and, according to her husband, was told: ‘This is a Catholic country.’”

It was thus assumed that a) Savita did indeed request an abortion, b) an abortion would have saved her life and c) the hospital made a definitively Catholic decision to deny her the lifesaving procedure. Pro-choice protests erupted and Ireland’s politicians started talking about the need for reform. Savita became a martyr to Catholic cruelty. “I am ashamed that Ireland's medieval abortion law still stands,” wrote one Guardian commentator. And who wouldn’t be, if all they read was The Guardian?

But the story was a lot more complicated than it first appeared. The journalist who broke it later admitted that the facts were “rather muddled.” She now thinks that a termination might not have been requested and that Savita was only healthy “as far as we know” before going into hospital, implying that her condition might already have been fatal and that an abortion wouldn’t have saved her.

[NYer]

Stories are reported as evidence of Catholic hatred for women, Aids sufferers or the LGBTQ community. And when the details of those stories are later challenged, the contradictions seem to get much less attention than the original accusation.

The same is true of politics. The media recognize that most viewers only recall the initial facts and rarely read follow up articles.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It turns out that Savita had septicemia; that it is neither caused nor aggravated by pregnancy; that a termination neither cures nor treats septicemia; that if a treatment (indirectly) caused the death of her baby, such treatment would have be forbidden neither by Catholic morals nor by Irish law; and in any case, there’s no evidence she ever asked for a termination.

AND Ireland, supposedly under the baneful effect of retrograde Catholic pro-life morals, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates on the planet.

So.

Other than that, what was wrong with the story?

[NYer]

what was wrong with the story?

The answer is in your response: It turns out that Savita had septicemia. The author of this article makes the point that the media's initial reporting pointed fingers of blame at the Catholic Church. It wasn't until later that ALL of the facts were released, thus nullifying any blame on church teaching. By then, however, the media damage had been done; they had succeeded, yet again, in tying the Catholic Church to a tragic situation and that misleading information is what has remained with readers who did not follow the story to its conclusion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

My question was meant to be sarcastic :o)

[LadyDoc]

the question is the source of the sepsis.

It could be from prolonged rupture of the membranes, and in this case, one could argue that delivering the baby would have prevented it.

However, the AAFP (Family practice) guidelines say watchful waiting, since usually labor either starts within a week or the membranes reseal and then the baby might be carried long enough to live.

Since she came into the hospital with back pain, I wonder what caused the sepsis caused the back pain. Did they miss a ruptured ovarian cyst or twisted ovary? Acute appendicitis? Kidney infection? was there an intervention to start labor (i.e. pessary) by the doctors that caused the sepsis?

So there are lots of questions, and this is being used for propaganda by folks who don’t care about little things like the truth.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So there are lots of questions, and this is being used for propaganda by folks who don’t care about little things like the truth."

True that. And people swallow this propaganda whole, usually by just reading the headline, the photo caption and (if they're not distracted by Kardashian News Flashes) the first paragraph.