Politicized or not, most Christians have deeply religious reasons for opposing abortion, and that's why it's a shame that the U.S. media's coverage of the issue at the most crucial moment of the recent congressional health-care debate was reduced to two lone words: "Baby Killer!"

They were shouted by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and they instantly displaced any thoughtful coverage that might have helped nonreligious Americans understand why abortion was such a sticking point for conservative legislators.

Neugebauer claimed he was referring to the health care bill, not Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who had opposed the bill because of its funding for abortions, but changed his mind and was speaking when "Baby Killer!" was heard throughout the room. Either way, Neugebauer's outburst immediately became the most newsworthy thing to come from the health care debate that day, judging by the flood of coverage devoted solely to Neugebauer's poorly timed exclamation.

Within hours, news sites and TV stations were knee deep in a whodunit-style investigation to uncover whose voice had sent the words flying across the floor of the legislature. Never mind why they were shouted. USA Today headlined its story with the revelation that Neugebauer was behind the unfolding scandal. The Associated Press and the Houston Chronicle both dissected the political consequences. And Diana Butler Bass, writing for the Huffington Post, focused on the morality of using the words "Baby Killer" as a personal insult. (Bass did, however, include an insightful paragraph about mainstream Christian beliefs regarding "any sort of intentional violence against human beings"—including abortion.)

Even before Neugebauer's infamous flare-up on March 21, news outlets were doing a poor job of explaining why abortion was being viewed as a deal-breaker. On the previous day, the Washington Post astutely declared that the health-care vote "may hinge on abortion issues," but did not explain why.

The New York Times came up with an interesting story about progressive Catholic nuns who backed the health-care legislation in spite of the abortion controversy. The piece at least included a few quotes that addressed why abortion was so controversial, but did not go much further in providing a significant explanation of the outrage with which many religious Americans viewed the abortion issue.

Such reactive coverage of an important issue illustrates why journalists should be ready to provide analysis—and indeed should consider analysis one of their most important duties.

In this case, a few quick sentences below the nut graph would have improved virtually every story about Neugebauer's outburst. It could have been as simple as this: "Christian taxpayers detest the idea of their money being used to fund what they consider to be state-sanctioned murder." And then a quote from any number of pro-life groups that can be counted on to provide sound bites on short notice.

That kind of context would have served as a splendid explanation of why Neugebauer shouted "Baby Killer!" But, unfortunately, it was the last thing that journalists seemed to care about as the political and popular spin picked up the story and carried it far beyond its religious origins.

Unless journalists get serious about including analysis with their news coverage, when a big story with religious implications breaks, readers may find themselves knowing the story without understanding it.

Tom Pfingsten is a journalist living in Southern California and studying foreign policy in the Specialized Journalism program at USC. Before grad school, he spent five years as a daily city reporter for the North County Times in San Diego, and he is currently working on a book about World War II veterans, Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.