Written by Jon O'Brien for RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

On Friday, December 12, the Vatican released a document on bioethics, Dignitas Personae (Dignity of the Person), which showed how the Catholic hierarchy is once again on the wrong side of science and the needs of contemporary society. While there was little new in the statement, the document reconfirmed the Vatican's condemnation of artificial reproductive technologies and also said human cloning, designer babies and embryonic stem-cell research are all immoral. It remains difficult to reconcile the Vatican's self-avowed prolife approach with the rejection of in-vitro fertilization and embryo freezing, not to mention the condemnation of the potential of stem-cell research. As our scientists use ground-breaking technology to find treatments to diseases that have endured for centuries, they need our support, not the condemnation put forth by the Vatican.

We know that Catholics are as likely to suffer from fertility problems as is the rest of the population and they should have the support of their hierarchy as they pursue parenthood. Catholics also understand the potential of embryonic stem-cell research, and support it in large numbers. A poll we carried out during the summer found that almost seven in ten Catholics in the US favor stem-cell research with early human embryos (69 percent). A similar number support decoupling science from religion, rejecting the Catholic hierarchy's attempts to influence scientific endeavor. An even larger proportion (73 percent) say they believe Catholic politicians are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend. This may be an issue during the coming administration if Congress is asked to vote on whether to extend federal funding for such vital research.

It is true that the Catholic hierarchy has had a long and public battle with science and scientists over the centuries. What's perhaps less well known is the fact that despite these battles, various elements of the Catholic church have a long and well respected reputation for supporting scientific endeavor. Church teachings not only allow but encourage adherents to the Catholic faith to support and promote scientific discovery. We need that aspect of the church to step forward now, and show the world that Catholicism and scientific progress can work in harmony to help develop the cures we need to deal with disease and infertility.

A famous Catholic scientist, John Rock, had some sage words for the Catholic bishops. Rock, who was the co-inventor of the contraceptive pill, received a letter from an angry conservative. "You should be afraid to meet your Maker," she wrote soon after the pill was approved. "My dear madam," Rock replied, "in my faith, we are taught that the Lord is with us always. When my time comes, there will be no need for introductions." Rock was also a pioneer in in-vitro fertilization and the freezing of sperm cells, and was the first to extract an intact fertilized egg. Here clearly was a man who did much to promote life and the dignity of the individual. Now that is something that all good Catholics can support.

Written by Sarah Seltzer for RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

"Blaming the media" is a catch-phrase that is used in almost cliché-level proportions. But when it comes to health care, a new study indicates it may be appropriate to fault media coverage for a lack of public knowledge about health care policy--and by extension the false perception of reproductive rights as ideological "hot rods" rather than women's health concerns.

A recently-released Pew Research study conducted with the Kaiser Family Foundation monitored health coverage from January 2007 to June 2008 to determine which subjects got the most coverage, and in which media. The study was designed to be particularly broad-ranging--rather than, for instance, analyzing how TV news covers breast cancer, the study looked at how television, radio, print, online outlets and other forms of media covered everything heath-related, from specific diseases to health policy and more.

What were the results? According to the report, "News about health occupies a relatively small amount of American news coverage across all platforms: 3.6% of news during 2007 and the first half of 2008." In a list of most frequently covered topics, health came in eighth--far above religion, education and celebrities, but below the economy, crime, foreign affairs and politics.

These results, while are hardly thrilling, don't seem abysmal at first. Health gets more coverage than celebrities, after all, which seems like a victory in our current climate. But compounding the small amount of attention devoted to health, the breakdown within existing health coverage shows a tendency to focus on controversial or sensational aspects of health issues, leaving vital policy information behind. One need only to think about the extreme health stories on the nightly news (Are your pills contaminated? Are your children at risk from a rare strain of X?) to understand the crux of the problem. Why focus on the actual public ramifications of various diseases and policies when Jenny McCarthy and Amanda Peet are going at it over autism -- or we can lure people in front of the TV by frightening them?

This is a situation only too familiar to reproductive health advocates, who often see the public health crises caused by lack of reproductive health care submerged beneath the kind of pitched battles or titillating stories the media loves.

Within the small percentage of health news, outlets focused 41.7% on specific diseases, the kind of coverage which spikes somewhat when a celebrity like Elizabeth Edwards, Tony Snow, or Tim Russert has cancer or a heart attack. Public health issues made up 30.9% of coverage, including stories like the tuberculosis-infected man-on-plane scandal, and reports on gossipy health problems like binge drinking.

Coming in third, actual health policy made up only 24.7% of general "health" coverage--and this includes the political battles during the primaries and the SCHIP vote. Considering that the American health care system is essentially broken, this is a dismal indicator: as the report notes, that means that health policy news made up less than 1% of media coverage during the time period. This is not to say that other aspects of health care coverage are unimportant (certainly, diseases and public health issues are probably not covered deeply enough), but instead to point out that sensational and celebrity-oriented slants to health stories often obscure the practical health issues that affect media consumers' lives.

An example of this is the fact that HIV/AIDS stories made up only 2.2% of stories related to health, even though misinformation about the (still very much present) disease persists, and dissemination of accurate information is crucial to preventing its transmission.

Newsflash: RH Issues Are Health Issues

The lack of coverage when it comes to HIV/AIDS is emblematic of a general failure when it comes to the portrayal of sexual health and reproductive rights in the news media.

In our scandal and controversy-oriented news culture, reproductive health issues are treated as controversial flashpoints or political footballs rather than genuine public and personal health crises. Many media personalities and reporters caught on to fact that there is a connection between ideology and health during John McCain's infamous placing of "air quotes" around the word "women's health" during a debate--but there has been little follow up on that connection.

One example of the way the discussion is turned away from health and towards "morality" is the firestorm over the HHS regulations that would allow providers to "opt out" of medical procedures they find objectionable.

In focusing on the consciences and internal struggles of health care providers, rather than the difficulty women have accessing proper care, the media does more damage than it possibly can be aware of.

Last month in Slate, Melinda Hennenberger offered an egregious example of this: she spun a piece about the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that would expand women's access to reproductive care and abortion, into an assault on the moral consciences of Catholics. Presto -- a bill meant to protect women's health becomes an ideological war on the Catholic church. A juicier story, but a misleading one.

RH Reality Check refuted Hennenberger's factual speculation and even her colleague Dahlia Lithwick reminded readers that women's health hangs in the balance--and often gets lost in the shuffle--when this question is debated.

An example of how to address reproductive health issues in a non-sensational, health-based manner is Rachel Maddow's recent interview with Melissa Harris Lacewell, which was also discussed on this site. The most remarkable thing about the interview was that rather than being framed as a left-right battle royal, the priority of women's health needs was acknowledged by both interviewer and interviewee, and was the jumping off point for their discussion rather than the conclusion. They still managed to talk for a long time, and it was even interesting!

There is a market for sensible, factual health coverage--because it affects people's lives. It's a wonder that so many arbiters of what's "news" have yet to discover that. Framing reproductive health issues from a public health perspective, and boosting coverage of health care policy, are absolutely crucial to changing the frame on reproductive rights back to what it's really about: women's access to the care they need.