Did a British judge compel a child to have an abortion?

Reader beware. A story that is too good to be true is often that, not true.

An article in the Huffington Post reporting that a British judge compelled a 13-year-old to undergo an abortion sparked outrage on pro-life blogs and news sites this week. Unfortunately the key claim of the story — what moved this from a tragedy to an outrage — was false.

The Huffington Post ran a story on June 9 entitled “High Court Orders 13-Year-Old Girl To Have Abortion.” This prompted sharp reactions from commentators, while LifeSiteNews.com — a conservative Christian advocacy site — ran a story entitled “UK judge orders 13-year-old to have abortion. This is medical rape.”

The lede in this advocacy piece stated:

This story is truly disturbing. According to the Huffington Post UK: “A ‘very damaged’ 13-year-old girl was ordered to have an abortion by Britain’s most senior family judge, it has been revealed.

The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was impregnated by a 14-year-old boy and initially wanted to keep her baby.”

That’s right. This girl, because she was considered mentally incompetent, was forced — forced — to have her child dismembered, decapitated, and disemboweled by the medical establishment because one Sir James Munby decided that capital punishment was most appropriate for being the child of a someone he described as “very … impaired.”

Where does the error lay? Did the editorial writer at LifeSiteNews misconstrue the Huffington Post story? Here is the lede from the Huffington Post — what would you take this to mean?

A “very damaged” 13-year-old girl was ordered to have an abortion by Britain’s most senior family judge, it has been revealed.

However, other press reports of the incident did not say the judge compelled the girl to have an abortion. The Daily Mail reported the girl had at first declined to have an abortion, but then wanted to have an abortion.

The judge said evidence had been prepared on the basis that the teenager was opposed to a termination. But when the hearing began she was ‘wavering’ and by the end she had wanted a termination. He said the ‘preponderance of evidence” pointed to a termination being in the girl’s best interests and said he had, in any event, concluded that a termination was in her best interests.

The Huffington Post piece did hint at a change of mind.

But Sir James said the girl’s opposition to an abortion had wavered during the hearing. ”It was clearly appropriate for me to supply the necessary consent to enable the termination to proceed,” he said.

[Read more...]

Is this Bible legislation legal? Quick, call and ask my pastor!

No fooling, the following lede comes not from the satire publication The Onion but from a real newspaper — the New Orleans Times-Picayune:

Legislation that would make the Holy Bible the official state book of Louisiana cleared the House Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs with a vote of 8-5 Thursday afternoon. It will now head to the full House of Representatives for consideration.

Rep. Thomas Carmody, R-Shreveport, originally filed a bill to declare a specific copy of the Bible, found in the Louisiana State Museum system, the official state book. But by the time he presented the proposal to the committee, he changed language  in his legislation to make the generic King James version of the Bible, a text used worldwide, the official state book.

Um, the generic King James version? Is there a non-generic King James version?

But peel back the layers, and this story just keeps getting more Onion-y:

Carmody said his intention was not to mingle religion with government functions. “This is not about establishing an official religion,” he said.

Still, Legislators became concerned that the proposal wasn’t broad enough and did not reflect the breadth of Bibles used by religious communities. In particular, some lawmakers worried that singling out the King James version of the Bible would not properly reflect the culture of Louisiana. The Catholic Church, for example, does not use the King James text.

“Let’s make this more inclusive of other Christian faiths, more than just the ones that use the King James version,” said Rep. Stephen Ortego, D-Carencro.

Read on, and see if the quote below makes your jaw drop like it did mine:

[Read more...]

On Hobby Lobby, how does the Supreme Court measure up?

Aaaaiiieeeee! More “devout Catholics!”

No, wait. The Washington Post seems here to be using the term more responsibly, examining the relationship between beliefs and verdicts. And it doesn’t even use the term as a launchpad for a liberal screed.

The article tied to the Hobby Lobby case is not flawless, but it does try to advance knowledge for people who aren’t court watchers. How well, though, is a good question.

After a painful cliché — “The justices got religion” — the article calms down:

Or at least they seem more open about their faith, appearing before devout audiences and talking more about how religion shaped their lives or guides them now.

As the court this week weighs religious conviction vs. legal obligation in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, those who study the court say the change is hard to quantify but easy to notice.

The Post notes that this is the first-ever U.S. Supreme Court without a Protestant member, instead sitting six Catholics and three Jews. It says the mix may affect the outcome of two cases this week in which two companies — the evangelical-linked Hobby Lobby chain and the Mennonite-owned Conestoga Wood Supplies — must comply with Obamacare’s requirement to supply employees with all kinds of contraceptives.

The “devout Catholics” are justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — although, as in many media, the Post doesn’t say how they’re devout. Nor does it include fellow Catholic Justice Anthony Kennedy among the titled devout. More on that later.

“In what is likely to be the signature case of the term, the issue is not affiliation but devotion,” the Post says. But how to spot or measure devotion is left unclear. Clarence Thomas is a “former seminarian who says God saved his life,” but doesn’t offer details. Antonin Scalia has used the phrase “fool for Christ” and has stated his belief in the devil.

But how often do the justices attend worship? How often do they observe Holy Communion or light Shabbat candles? How many of the basic doctrines of their faiths do they hold? How much do their beliefs affect their everyday lives?

For a couple of them, the answer would be “not much.” Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, is not religious, but was raised in parochial schools, like Thomas. Also nonreligious is Elena Kagan, who “nonetheless has reminded Jewish groups that she undertook years of three-days-a-week religious instruction as a child.”

The other drawback to the Post article? It’s vague on how the beliefs of the justices influence their actions, especially while at the bench. In fact, some of the story indicates otherwise:

“It is literally impossible to answer” whether a justice’s religious views affect his or her decision-making, said Richard H. Fallon, a Harvard law professor who is a scholar of the court …

The rise of religious conservatives on the court corresponds with the rise of the religious right in Republican politics. Seven of the 11 justices who joined the court since 1980 were nominated by Republican presidents, including the five Catholic men who are the current court’s most consistent conservatives.

But they were not chosen for their religious affiliations, experts agree. “It didn’t matter that Alito was Catholic,” said Eric Mazur, a professor of religious studies at Virginia Wesleyan College. “What mattered was his ideology.”

[Read more...]

Mixing scales of justice and songs of praise

Strange, strange, strange — like something out of a John Grisham novel.

That was my first reaction to an Associated Press news story about a Tennessee jury accused of singing, praying and reading Bible verses during deliberations:

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The attorney for a man sentenced to death for the torture slayings of a young Knoxville couple says the jury spent the majority of its sentencing deliberations singing worship songs and reading Bible verses rather than discussing the case.

A motion filed on behalf of Lemaricus Davidson was recently unsealed along with pages of handwritten hymns and praise songs used by jurors during Davidson’s 2009 trial. His attorney says the impromptu worship service violated Davidson’s rights to a fair trial, due process and impartial jury.

The AP story is a rewrite of a longer report that first appeared in the Knoxville News Sentinel.

Both pieces impressed me as woefully short on specific details concerning the jury’s alleged infractions. For example, I want to know the specific songs they sang. Did they fancy “Rock of Ages?” Or did they lean more toward “Jesus Freak?” Similarly, I want to know the specific Bible verses they read. Concerning the Scriptures, the original Knoxville newspaper report notes:

The motion is based on a signed affidavit from a bailiff who served during Davidson’s 2009 trial. The affidavit included handwritten notes that said the praise service happened before deliberation, but does not specify a timeline or location of the service. It does show the jury members used copies of hymns while one member led the others in song while playing guitar. Another juror read a Bible verse — Psalm 90, verse 12 — according to the handwritten notes.

The King James Version of that verse says:

So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.

I’m assuming that the reported details are vague because the court records themselves are vague. Moreover, I’m assuming that the jurors either can’t, or won’t, talk about the case. In other words, the news organizations are reporting what they know, which isn’t a whole lot.

Hopefully, more facts will surface at a hearing on the defense motion set for next week.

Strange, strange, strange.

Image via Shutterstock


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X