The Catholic News Service is an indispenible provider of news pertinent to Catholics in the U.S. But, what possessed them to reprint an unsigned editorial from the Tennessee Register that was sloppily argued and brazenly partisan.
The entire text reads as if it was written by the Republican National Committee in its unrelenting indictment of President Obama from his pro-choice stance to his inability to defend programs that harm the poor and te vulnerable from congressional budget cuts. Mind, I do not share the president's pro-choice stance and I, too, have been critical of his inability to defend programs that are the proud legacy of the Democratic Party. But, surely the author of this piece might have noticed that it was the Republicans in Congress who were trying to eviscerate domestic programs that help the poor.
In laying the charge that the President has pursued his pro-choice position with abandon, they point to the health care reform law. They fail to note that just last week, a court in Ohio concluded that the law does not, in fact, provide tax-payer funding of abortion. Instead, as evidence of the president's intent to advance the pro-choice agenda, they switch targets, and bring up the lack of adequate conscience protections in the new health care mandates. I don't think anyone has been as loud as I have in objecting to the conscience protections as inadequate, but what does that have to do with abortion funding?
Our sister publication is hiring! Learn more about employment opportunities with Global Sisters Report.
And, while I was disappointed in the President's inability to get any movement on immigration reform, surely the author realizes that the problem here is a determind GOP opposition to comprehensive reform, not the White House. Surely, they noticed that the President pushed, and pushed hard, for the DREAM Act, an admittedly small step in the right direction on immigration, but he was prevented from taking even that small step towards social justice by the GOP.
CNS is a great institution. This editorial is unworthy of their own standards.