Filed under: Ripped from the Headlines
Typically I attempt more light-hearted news under “Ripped from the Headlines,” but we’re veering in a different direction this time. Why? Well, a few articles I’ve recently stumbled upon almost require a closer look simply because of their nature. And what kind of journalist-blogger would I be if I wasn’t the one to highlight these particular news items?
A Catholic nun and longtime administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix was reassigned in the wake of a decision to allow a pregnancy to be ended in order to save the life of a critically ill patient.
The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, who indicated the woman was “automatically excommunicated” because of the action.
Upon reading this brief snipit, what do you immediately imagine? I see the nun being physically present at the woman’s abortion and providing her consent. But that’s not the case whatsoever. Rather, the nun acted on a hospital board and was one of several people whose opinions ultimately decided that the abortion was crucial toward saving the woman’s life.
But does the Catholic Church have any leniency? None whatsoever. Despite hospital standards – I will note it was a Catholic hospital, so I understand the conflict, but still… – specifically stating that, in some cases, abortions can occur to save a mother, apparently this instance did not fulfill the requirements. Personally, I would assume “imminent death” to be a pretty good reason.
Would they prefer the woman died? Would any of those individuals truly have been happier had she passed away instead of the infant? I bet not, yet Catholic officials in Phoenix were optimistic rather than truthful, saying they hoped both would survive. Don’t they recognize that maybe, just maybe, the mother’s death would have come sooner than nine months and that baby would have died anyway? Sometimes faith isn’t enough and medicine needs to intervene.
The article also doesn’t note whether or not the other members of this hospital board were reprimanded, meaning it’s both possible and plausible that the nun was the only one to receive such harsh punishment for her split-second decision. Excommunicated? I’m sorry, but even in Catholicism, that seems a bit extreme.
During a visit to an elementary school in Langley Park, Maryland, to promote her anti-obesity campaign, first lady Michelle Obama faced a tough question from one second-grader.
“My mom said that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers,” the second-grader said when Obama called on her.
Quite an insightful second-grader, huh? I rarely delve into political topics – other than gay marriage, obviously – on my blog because I tend to feel as if my knowledge about such subjects isn’t enough to provide a thorough comment. However, in this case, I’m willing to make an exception.
The full scope of these new immigration laws may elude me, but I know the basics and I know that government officials in Arizona are acting quite unethically in their pursuit to rid that state of illegal aliens. I also know that some people, those in politics especially, aren’t looking at the faces and families behind these acts, which is quite unfortunate. You watch this video and read the words of this young girl whose mother is, obviously, here illegally and you feel for her – a child who, to some extent, believes her parent might be taken away from this country.
Do I see anything wrong with people relocating to America from other countries and nations? Not in the least bit. After all, we are a land built on immigration. Do I believe these individuals should do so legally and responsibly? Of course. But there has to be a more ethical, honorable way of ensuring this rather than simply stopping anyone who might look slightly different than Caucasian and sending them away if they don’t have the right papers. How much time do you think this little girl’s mother has before she’s deported because of what this youngster said? Sadly, I doubt there’s even much time left as I write this sentence.
A judge sentenced a couple to the maximum 14 years in prison with hard labor under Malawi’s anti-gay legislation, and crowds jeered the two men as they were driven from the court house to jail Thursday.
Clearly Malawi is a land very different from our own. We’d be ignorant not to recognize that fact, first and foremost. But it’s one thing to ostracize individuals based on their sexual preference. It’s quite another to implement harsh jail sentences. Like one commenter in the articles says, will 14 years behind bars, 14 years of hard labor, truly force these men into reconsidering their sexual preference? I think not. At the same time, this country is not my own and their laws are written as such, demanding a prison sentence for acts of homosexuality. Who am I to sharply criticize a land I’m entirely unfamiliar with? Now, this doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to, but really, it wouldn’t be right.
I can provide remarks about the ridiculous nature of those who commented on this Yahoo! article, though. The completely closed-mindedness of these people causes my stomach to turn. Among 3,400 comments, there are people quoting the Bible, noting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, commending Malawi for being “better” than America in its judgmental ways, so on and so forth. I was so disgusted reading these comments – yet also a bit intrigued by people’s complete lack of compassion – that I had couldn’t continue my perusal. Deplorable would be a perfect term to describe many of the statements made by people who would never state them in reality, but can easily do so when concealed behind a pseudonym. How easy it is for such individuals to bravely stand behind a computer and spit out their “righteousness,” yet cower when the moment arrives to confront the topic to a gay man’s face.
5 Comments so far
Leave a comment