To be clear, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops inserted their religious views into the House bill. The members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice - Christian and Jewish denominations - and millions of Americans of all faiths do not share the Catholic bishops' doctrine on reproductive issues and do not want the bishops' views to determine how they live their lives.
Virtually all religious denominations that have taken a position on health care reform have agreed it should be abortion neutral - that is, it should not change existing policy on abortion coverage. Clearly, the Catholic bishops' group is not willing to honor that position. So let's call this "compromise" what it is: an encroachment on the separation of religion and state and an affront to a basic constitutional principle. The fact that the Catholic hierarchy can dictate what Congress can legislate should be disturbing to all Americans, regardless of their position on abortion or contraception.
President Obama said on Monday that he wanted to adjust the abortion language in the health care bill so that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed." But this push for “common ground” on abortion is partly responsible for the House of Representatives’ retreat on women's health care - along with the Democratic Party's recruitment of pro-life candidates. Common ground is a misleading term. The Catholic bishops and their allies never ceded any ground. The Democratic Party has a lot to answer for in terms of pushing back women's rights.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California stated the issue clearly in floor debate on the House health care bill: "We're a democracy, not a theocracy." If the Stupak Amendment is the beginning of a trend, the Catholic bishops may be dictating policy on a number of social issues.
]]>According to dictionary definitions, “fungibility” is a property of a good or a commodity whose individual units can be mutually substituted. For example, crude oil, wheat, orange juice, precious metals, and currencies are highly fungible commodities.
How does that apply to women’s reproductive health services? In a recent letter to U.S. senators, Cardinal Justin Rigali, head of USCCB's pro-life committee, stated that “federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortion" unless abortion is specifically banned.
In other words, funding any health care service – anything at all – could free up dollars for abortion services, unless abortion is specifically and across-the-board excluded from health care reform.
According to the Women’s Health Policy report of October 19, Amy Sullivan, writing in the October 18 issue of Time, explained:
In July, Cardinal Justin Rigali, then the head of USCCB's pro-life committee, said the bishops wanted health reform that lacked "direct federal funding for abortion." Sullivan wrote that this "language was important because it seemed to match an amendment" by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) under which no federal dollars could directly fund abortion procedures. "An individual could obtain an abortion if her insurance plan covered it," Sullivan explained, "but the procedure would be paid with segregated dollars from a pool funded by privately paid premiums." Democrats felt confident that the Capps amendment would clear the way for the bishops' support of health reform, but a few weeks later, Rigali sent a second letter claiming that funding to insurers is "fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortion."
The fungibility doctrine has been used successfully before, to restrict U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to clinics in the poorest developing countries that provided family planning services. The argument was that by funding birth control, the U.S. would be freeing up money for abortion. The reality is that 70,000 women a year die in developing countries from unsafe abortion and there are five million cases of severe complications each year. By funding birth control, we would limit unintended and unsafe pregnancies and save lives. “Pro-life” legislators and groups such as the Catholic bishops’ conference that put forth the fungibility doctrine were – whether they meant to or not – contributing to the death of women from preventable, pregnancy-related causes.
In the U.S. health care reform debate over covering abortion services, “fungibility” is a doctrine being used by those who have no medical, health or moral grounds to stand on. It is a doctrine born of fear. It is difficult to imagine any religious or ethical sentiment that could justify it.
The president asked:
As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
And he gave this answer:
...open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do [because] that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."
My experience of 13 years in the pro-choice movement is that "common ground" has become another term for compromise on reproductive choice. In other words, achieving common ground will be accomplished by diminishing the ability of women to make decisions about abortion, whatever the personal cost. That's unacceptable.
It's unacceptable for even one woman to suffer in order for opponents of abortion to be appeased.
In our democracy, we believe in standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, those without power; we don't compromise them away. We should not sacrifice women's lives in the service of calming controversy and tempering anger over an issue that has become political.
When I, a pro-choice Christian pastor, counsel a woman about abortion, I try to help her search for the decision that is right for her and, if she wishes, others in her life. Her decision is private and individual, a matter of conscience, personal circumstances that she knows best, and medical facts that only she and her doctor know. The last thing on my mind is "common ground."
The President rightly wants us to lower the decibel level of the debate over abortion, to stop using loaded terms such as "right-wing extremist" and to treat each other with fairness and civility. But he also acknowledged that, "at some level," there were "irreconcilable differences" over abortion between the "two camps." Now, if you accept that women are full persons in the eyes of God and the law and if you understand justice to include equality, then you cannot stop working for women's control over childbearing. "Irreconcilable differences" over abortion are just that - and the question now, as the Obama administration attempts to work out policies to reduce unintended pregnancy, is how to reach a respectful agreement that honors these differences, not how to back down gracefully.
President Obama's call for reducing abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies and making adoption more available ignores the complex emotional and psychological reality of sexual relations and personal decisions. Finding common ground about abortion is not the same as finding common ground about global warming or economic stimulus. Abortion is about an individual woman's life - her decision, her destiny - and there can be no compromise when it comes to her conscience.
The President went to Notre Dame to promote understanding and cooperation and he openly addressed the issue of abortion while anti-abortion demonstrators protested outside. He spoke to the United States and to the world about finding a way "to live together as one human family." That's admirable, but he should have also recognized the individual woman who stands alone, needing to make a decision of conscience. For her, there is no question of easing tensions between opposing camps. There is only her decision - and that is what we must honor in any attempt to find common ground on abortion.
]]>President Obama’s new stem cell research policy was expected – but the way he framed it was totally unexpected to me as a pro-choice minister. Rather than elevating science above all, he spoke “as a person of faith” – those are his words. And he said: “I believe we are called to care for each other and to work to ease human suffering.” He was clear that his religious views informed his policy and that using federal funds for research using stem cells from existing embryos that are slated to be destroyed is fully consistent with respect for human life.
You would have to know a lot about religious positions on research with embryonic stem cells to know that Obama is firmly in the mainstream of religion on this issue. You wouldn’t know that from most press coverage, which routinely says that religious groups are against this research and health advocates – secular groups - are for it. In most of the American press, “religious” is a synonym for anti-choice or, in this case, anti-research with stem cells from embryos. In short, the press buys the Religious Right storyline that they have a lock on religion. In this scenario, the rest of us – we who are pro-choice, who believe it’s moral and ethical to use embryos slated for destruction to advance science and save lives – are somehow not religious, even if we worship and live according to our understanding of our faiths.
President Obama’s words reflect sentiments of his denomination, the United Church of Christ: “…by banning the research, we foreclose the possibility of doing all we can to improve the lot of the living, and in many cases giving them new life…” They also reflect the statement adopted by the RCRC Board of Directors in 2000: that “excess embryos slated for destruction must not be placed above persons whose pain and suffering might be alleviated due to the knowledge gained from studying them.” They reflect the view that being “pro-life” cannot be reduced to being pro-embryo or pro-fetus; life is much greater and life is the common good.
This new policy is a radical leap forward. As the President said, “sound science and moral values” are not inconsistent in this revised policy. It’s not only about removing the restrictions placed on federal funding of research with embryonic stem cells, the cells that potentially have the ability to cure some of our most devastating diseases. It’s about acting as healers and creators of a better life and rising above the narrow and often petty definitions that some claim to be the whole and only truth. Perhaps this will be the beginning of a new understanding that people who are religious and religious institutions themselves have many different views on bioethics. In announcing this policy as he did, President Obama also announced a fresh start for religious freedom and respect for religious diversity on controversial issues. Change has come!
]]>It is said that some of the legislators who pushed for the elimination thought family planning had little to do with economic recovery and that others were looking for an excuse to stir up the culture wars. I believe they succeeded in doing the opposite – creating a teaching moment about poverty and reproductive health care. (See Amy Sullivan’s article on Time magazine’s website, dated Jan. 29.) Reproductive health care is not extraneous to the economic well-being of poor women and their families. A woman living in poverty is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth as her higher-income counterpart. Conversely, women with access to reproductive health information and services can continue their education or delay childbearing until their family income and circumstances are ready.
Family planning makes economic sense for policy as well as personal reasons: publicly funded clinics that serve Medicaid clients prevented 1.4 million unintended pregnancies last year, saving the government more than $4 billion in costs related to pregnancies and post-natal care. Bottom line, the provision that was stripped from the economic recovery bill would have saved the government $200 million over five years by decreasing costs related to pregnancies and post-natal care, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
I trust that the administration and Congress will find other ways to expand family planning services for poor and low-income women, either in other pieces of legislation or as a stand-alone bill. I hope that they proceed with the moral urgency that this issue deserves. I urge each of us to connect our support for family planning and reproductive health care to our beliefs – be they religious, spiritual, ethical, humanistic, or without category. We are all working for social justice.
]]>We have a moral responsibility to heal our ailing communities. A new administration and the 111th Congress will be sworn in to office in January. We are hopeful that the New Year will shine a light on the morality and value of addressing these issues and that the administration makes them an immediate priority.
Our letter to the new President:
Dear President-elect Obama,
Our faith communities, comprising millions of Americans, unite in a shared moral commitment to preserve the reproductive health of our nation. Though traditionally cast as a woman's issue, we maintain that prioritizing reproductive health and justice is an integral part of achieving greater social justice for all. The ability to plan and care for one's family is central to addressing the myriad social, political and economic concerns we face. Accessing comprehensive health care services safely and legally is inextricably linked to the ability of our country's citizens and families to thrive. This is why we urge you to make these issues a priority in your administration.
Reproductive health is critical
at every stage of development: from routine gynecological exams, to
comprehensive and accurate sex education and disease prevention information,
to access to the full range of contraceptive options, to obtaining nondirective
counseling and proper obstetrical services during pregnancy.
Furthermore, access to reproductive health information and services builds a foundation for healthier families and communities, reduces maternal and infant mortality and improves the health of women and their families. It allows women to continue their education, thereby improving their economic status and the well-being of their families and their communities. Additionally, it is critical in preventing unintended pregnancies and in ensuring the blessing that every child is a wanted child.
The following three issues are among the social justice priorities of our faith communities, access to: comprehensive sex education, abortion services and contraceptive information and options.
Access to Comprehensive Sex Education
As faith communities, we are committed to sex education in our public schools that empowers and protects young people, honors diverse values, and promotes the highest ethical standards. Religious Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible sex education that is complete, age appropriate and includes accurate information about abstinence and contraception.
Federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are often based on incomplete information, fear, shame and exclusivity, denying basic civil rights to young people. They withhold information about pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease and frequently distort other health information. There is also a growing body of evidence that shows abstinence-only programs do not impact teens' decisions to abstain from sexual activity, while comprehensive programs can effectively do this.
In addition to compromising
ethical and public health standards, many abstinence-only programs currently
funded by the federal government and taught in public schools use messages
that are couched in religious rhetoric. As faith-based organizations
committed to the separation of religion and state, we believe it is
critical that public health and medically accurate methodology - not
restrictive views or ideologies - inform the sex education that young
people receive in our country's public schools.
Therefore, we urge you to:
Access to Abortion Services
As faith communities, we believe that each individual is capable of making complex moral decisions. Our faith traditions and American law entrust patients with autonomy in making health care decisions, free from government interference. We assert that in a diverse democracy each person has the liberty to draw upon his or her own faith for guidance, and not be subject to a single religion's views.
The landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade affirmed a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. However, since then, many anti-choice, ideologically-driven organizations, religious groups and elected and appointed officials have tried to restrict, if not eliminate, the ability to exercise this right, effectively codifying their own beliefs. This infringes upon the entire country's guarantee of religious freedom and personal liberty. Furthermore, these efforts endanger women's health and lives and intrude upon a woman's right to decide what is right for her.
Therefore, we urge you to improve access to abortion services:
Access to Contraceptive Information and Options
As faith communities, we believe
access to affordable and comprehensive contraceptive information and
services is an essential part of basic health care. Restrictions to
contraceptive access lead to more unintended pregnancies and significantly
contribute to the alarming rates of sexually transmitted infections
and disease, posing a serious threat to our nation's public health.
Access to family planning faces
ongoing attacks by individuals and organizations attempting to impose
their own political and ideological views, instead of respecting women's
and families' reproductive health and religious freedom. We believe
in the autonomy of women as moral decision makers. All women should
be able to choose whether, when, or if they have children.
Therefore, we urge you to:
We welcome the opportunity
to work together to preserve the reproductive health of our women and
girls and strengthen our nation's families and communities.
Sincerely,
]]>American Friends Service Committee
Catholics for Choice
Christian Lesbians Out
Disciples for Choice
Disciples Justice Action Network
Hadassah
Jewish Women International
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Lutheran Women's Caucus
National Council of Jewish Women
NA'AMAT USA
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church & Society
Union for Reform Judaism
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual
Editor's Note: This article is part of a pre-election series featuring leading voices in sexual and reproductive health advocacy, showing how shared American values underpin their support for sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice. Read them all here.
Should you leave your faith outside the voting booth? I say no – not only is that impossible, it also will make you a less informed voter. Your faith and your beliefs help shape what you care about. I am a Baptist minister and I am pro-choice because of my religious tradition and beliefs. My faith underlies my commitment to equality and justice. My beliefs inspire me to fight for accessible healthcare for all and intentional parenthood.
Growing up in a Christian home, I was taught by my father – also a Baptist minister - that God has given each of us free will and the responsibility to exercise it according to our understanding of God’s plan. As a young African-American man growing up in the South in the 1940s and as a minister in Washington DC, I saw firsthand how Black women and poor women suffered because they had few or no choices about an unintended pregnancy, even if it would damage their health or cause great hardship in their family. Some of them were maimed in back-alley abortions; some of them died. I believe it is a sin to force women to have a pregnancy they do not want – and, if a child is born, a sin to deny that child basic health, education and housing.
My religious tradition has many stories, teachings,
revelations, and laws about God’s purpose, but it also acknowledges that the
individual must in the end exercise the divine gifts of freedom and
responsibility when deciding to act. This is what my faith tells me about
reproductive issues:
On November 4, voters in Colorado, South Dakota and California will decide on anti-abortion initiatives. Many other voters will also consider candidates’ stances on reproductive health issues. Some will be influenced by what their minister tells them – and more often than not, it will be to vote for banning abortion. As a minister who tends to people in sickness and health, I have a different view. The scriptures speak of taking care of the vulnerable, the weak, the outcast, those in need. These ballot initiatives would do the reverse. They lack compassion, respect, and understanding.
There’s still time to let voters know there are many diverse beliefs about abortion among religions. For proof, visit our website and read We Affirm and Our Perspectives.
I think you’ll find an amazing variety of views, and you’ll find there is a long-standing consensus among religions that abortion is a private decision—a decision of conscience. It’s a decision that should be made by the individuals involved, in consultation with a medical doctor and guided by their faith.
We all have our own paths in life - we may adhere to a specific religious tradition, be on a self-directed spiritual path, consider ourselves humanistic, or profess no religious beliefs. But I believe that, as people who are pro-choice, we share a deep commitment for justice and equality. I believe that abortion bans and further restrictions on reproductive health and rights are damaging to the well-being of individuals and families. Public funding for family planning services for low-income women is a social justice issue to me because a woman living in or near poverty is four times more likely to have an unintended pregnancy and four times more likely to have an abortion than a woman with higher income. Unintended pregnancy can perpetuate poverty, interrupt education and job opportunities, and create family hardship. Simple justice requires that we support access to quality family planning information and services for all.
Your faith is part and parcel of who you are. Listen to your conscience and trust it. It will guide you to vote for equality and justice.
]]>Earlier this year, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice put out a request for people to tell us the story of how they learned about sex. We received well over 400 responses from individuals around the country age 17 through 94. These replies offer thoughtful reflections and often intimate, sometimes painful, glimpses into personal lives. Quite a few responders said they learned about sex "the hard way" -- from being abused as a child.
If I had known what sex was, I would have understood what was happening to me when I was molested by a male relative beginning at age 8. - Stephanie, 45*
My sex ed took place in a household where there was physical and emotional abuse, AND sexual abuse. Dad was having sex with 3 younger brothers. - Susan, 47
My uncle molested me at 12. If someone had shared the facts with me sooner it may not have happened the way it did. - Tom, 50
My father molested me. The earliest I remember was at age 6-7. - Helen, 76+
I was molested at 8 and do not recall ever being "taught" about sex. - Ginger, 32
From my older cousins talking about it and some in particular wanting to experiment with me. I was 6. They were teenagers. - Emily, 38
I was sexually abused from infancy. - Dorothy, 71
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, each year there are around 80,000 reported cases of child sexual abuse. It is well known that the number of unreported cases is far greater. Yet the curriculum for comprehensive sex education in kindergarten that John McCain derided is to learn about inappropriate touching.
Our survey also found that what you learn - or don't learn - as a child and young person can have life-long repercussions.
I wish I'd learned what intercourse was and how easy it is to get pregnant. - Joyce, 79
I wish I'd learned about STDs and the way in which they can be transmitted. I was under the impression that oral sex was safe, since you couldn't get pregnant from it. - Abigail, 26
The good girl/bad girl images prevalent when I was young only served to instill a great deal of fear in me, which negatively impacted on my marriage for years. - Jean, 57
Senator McCain, a proponent of abstinence-only education programs, is at odds with 80 percent of the American public who support comprehensive sex education. He can sensationalize the issue, but the fact remains that this is an issue of public health and safety.
Major faith traditions - Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Jewish - representing millions of Americans, support comprehensive sexuality education. These faith communities take seriously their duty to instill a set of religious and moral values that will help guide young people to responsible life choices. They believe that it is the role of government to ensure that the nation's youth receive the facts - unblemished by ideology - that will protect them from predators, disease and unintended pregnancy.
*Names have been changed.
]]>Recently-leaked Department of Health and Human Services draft regulations would redefine contraception as abortion and, in so doing, extend protections to health care providers who would refuse women contraceptive access as well as abortion care. As a minister who believes social justice must include reproductive justice, I am alarmed that religion is being used as an excuse to deny women abortion services. In effect, women are being told that their conscience doesn't count -- or doesn't count as much as a physician's.
The Medical Right's campaign involves putting pressure on both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Bush Administration to give physicians more leeway in refusing to refer for abortion services. But physicians already have ample protection to opt out of providing services if they have moral or religious objections. Conscience protections -- also called conscience clauses and religious refusals -- have been in place since 1973, when the Church Amendment (named for Senator Frank Church) was enacted. Congress and the President strengthened that several years ago with the Weldon Amendment.
We live in a religiously pluralistic society, and as a nation we believe in protecting religious expression and freedom. With regard to abortion and contraception, I believe this means we must accommodate both the physician who objects to providing abortion services and the patient who wants and need this service. A physician's objection to abortion must never result in a woman being denied a service she wants, needs and is legally and morally entitled to.
The Medical Right is pressuring ACOG -- which represents 90% of the nation's ob/gyns -- to allow anti-abortion physicians to refuse to provide women with referrals to other doctors who will perform the procedure. The leaked HHS draft regulations reveal that the department is also under pressure to broaden its regulations on opting out of services. Taken together, these proposed restrictions would make it more difficult for women to obtain abortion services and contraception.
In this clash of a healthcare provider's conscience with a woman's conscience, women will lose. An ACOG ethics opinion states the conflict well:
Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients, negatively affect a patient's health, are based on scientific misinformation, or create or reinforce racial or socioeconomic inequalities.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice supports this position as an appropriate reflection of American religious and social values. Health care professionals must provide information and care consistent with the highest standards of scientific evidence and responsive to the needs and wishes of individual patients -- without ideological or theological restrictions.
Women's health advocates, religious leaders, and people of faith need to stand together to protect a woman's right to services and allow her to follow her own conscience.
]]>Editor's Note: This is the third in a series of posts reporting on the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice's National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality. To read the other posts, click here.
As an African American pastor, I have worked for more than a decade to bring hope and healing to the Black Church community by breaking the silence about sex and sexuality. Today, reflecting on the just-concluded 12th annual National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality, I can see that the Black Church is undergoing a radical change. In place of the silence bred from fear and ignorance, we now see our youth and adults affirming God's good gift of sexuality and seeking the wisdom to live responsibly as spiritual and sexual beings.
You can just look at the high rates of unintended pregnancy and HIV/AIDS to know that the silence about sex in the African American church community has been disastrous. The fact that more than 740 clergy, educators, lay leaders and youth came together last week at the National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality to learn, talk and pray about sexuality issues is a breakthrough. And the fact that so many people have taken action to address the problems we face is an unmistakable sign that we are at the dawn of a new day.
Those who know the Black Church know what I mean when I say that talking about sex was taboo. We pastors turned our heads rather than acknowledge teen girls in our own congregations becoming pregnant, young men and women suffering HIV, and domestic violence and sexual abuse being perpetrated in the most upstanding families, including clergy families. We acted as though we did not know that the abortion rate among African American women is more than three times as high as that of White women.
We shattered the bonds of silence at last week's Summit on Sexuality. Former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders challenged us to "start doing what we say" as Christians. A health system that leaves 47 million without basic insurance is a betrayal of the values that we as Americans say we hold dear - the values of fairness and justice.
She challenged us to face up to the fact that many of us are guilty of child abuse - of saying we love children but allowing children to go without the basic necessities of life. Having children is a serious, lifelong commitment. We need to fund comprehensive sex education - including but not limited to education about abstinence - and contraception so people have the information and means to plan their pregnancies.
The Black Church - and our society at large - shows enormous respect and concern for the fetus, as do I. But I am also pro-choice because I believe women are moral agents, with the God-given ability to make conscious decisions and to know when to bring or not bring a child into the world. To people who attack me for being pro-choice and call me a "babykiller," I say there's something wrong with a society that is pro-life for the fetus but aborts the child through inadequate health care, poor education, and lack of opportunity.
During the 12 years of the National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality, the Black Church has become more accepting of women in ministry and of individuals who are gay and lesbian in church leadership positions. But we are far from finished in breaking the silence about sexuality in our Black churches. We are still exploring what faith communities can do to improve sexual health, family relationships and communications, youth development, women's lives, and parental responsibility. Hundreds of leaders of the Black Church have taken part in this movement to bring about a new vision of what it means to have "the abundant life," as Jesus called it. A new day is dawning, but what it will bring depends on our will to continue to move forward.
]]>