Action Alert!

on closing the barn door after...

By Diogenes (articles ) | Dec 14, 2006

Let's say that you're writing a news story for the Boston Globe, about the implementation of a new Massachusetts law requiring hospitals to provide "emergency contraception" for rape victims. You're faced with a dilemma. The paper's editorial policy insists that "emergency contraception" can never, never, ever be described as involving abortion. But then how do you explain why Catholic hospitals sometimes won't issue the pills?

The Catholic-hospital network has issued a statement explaining its policy, but you can't quote it, because it raises the untouchable issue. So you summarize:

They will not provide contraception to someone who is pregnant, even if the woman has been assaulted, the statement suggests.

Which raises the question: Why would a woman who's already pregnant want contraceptives? For later, after the baby is born? But then that wouldn't qualify as "emergency" contraception, now would it? If it really is an emergency, then it really isn't a contraceptive.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 3 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: Leo XIII727 - Dec. 14, 2006 7:34 PM ET USA

    Quod erat demonstrandum!

  • Posted by: Pete133 - Dec. 14, 2006 6:33 PM ET USA

    Ah! Ah! Ah! None of that! Logic and truth are expressly forbidden in this line of "journalism". Especially forbidden in the Boston area!

  • Posted by: TheJournalist64 - Dec. 14, 2006 5:53 PM ET USA

    Of course, madmen rule the world, and the newspapers, so none of this is surprising.