<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Kathryn Joyce's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/365"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/365/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/365/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2007-05-01T14:18:36-04:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Shotgun Adoption</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/06/shotgun-adoptions" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/06/shotgun-adoptions</id>
    <published>2009-10-06T07:00:00-04:00</published>
    <updated>2009-10-05T22:37:49-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kathryn Joyce</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="abortion" />
    <category term="access to abortion" />
    <category term="access to contraception" />
    <category term="adoption" />
    <category term="Bethany Christian Services" />
    <category term="crisis pregnancy centers" />
    <category term="unintended pregnancy" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[The National Abortion Federation estimates that as many as 4,000 CPCs operate in the United States, often using deceptive tactics like posing as abortion providers and showing women graphic antiabortion films. While there is growing awareness of how CPCs hinder abortion access, the centers have a broader agenda that is less well known: they seek not only to induce women to "choose life" but to choose adoption, either by offering adoption services themselves, as in Bethany's case, or by referring women to Christian adoption agencies. Far more than other adoption agencies, conservative Christian agencies demonstrate a pattern and history of coercing women to relinquish their children.    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<blockquote>
	<p>
	This article was originally published in the September 14, 2009 edition of <em>The Nation; </em>research for the article was provided by the Puffin Foundation Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute. 
	</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Carol Jordan, a 32-year-old pharmacy technician, was living in
Greenville, South Carolina, in 1999 when she became pregnant. She'd
already decided against abortion, but she was struggling financially and
her boyfriend was unsupportive. Looking through the Yellow Pages for
help, she spotted an ad under &quot;crisis pregnancies&quot; for Bethany Christian
Services. Within hours of calling, Jordan (who asked to be identified
with a pseudonym) was invited to Bethany's local office to discuss free
housing and medical care.
</p>
<p>

Bethany, it turned out, did not simply specialize in counseling pregnant
women. It is the nation's largest adoption agency, with more than
eighty-five offices in fifteen countries.
</p>
<p>
When Jordan arrived, a counselor began asking whether she'd considered
adoption and talking about the poverty rates of single mothers. Over
five counseling sessions, she convinced Jordan that adoption was a
win-win situation: Jordan wouldn't &quot;have death on her hands,&quot; her bills
would be paid and the baby would go to a family of her choosing in an
open adoption. She suggested Jordan move into one of Bethany's
&quot;shepherding family&quot; homes, away from the influence of family and
friends.
</p>
<p>
Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), the nonprofit pregnancy-testing
facilities set up by antiabortion groups to dissuade women from having
abortions, have become fixtures of the antiabortion landscape,
buttressed by an estimated $60 million in federal abstinence and
marriage-promotion funds. The National Abortion Federation estimates
that as many as 4,000 CPCs operate in the United States, often using
deceptive tactics like posing as abortion providers and showing women
graphic antiabortion films. While there is growing awareness of how CPCs
hinder abortion access, the centers have a broader agenda that is less
well known: they seek not only to induce women to &quot;choose life&quot; but to
choose adoption, either by offering adoption services themselves, as in
Bethany's case, or by referring women to Christian adoption agencies.
Far more than other adoption agencies, conservative Christian agencies
demonstrate a pattern and history of coercing women to relinquish their
children.
</p>
<p>
Bethany guided Jordan through the Medicaid application process and in
April moved her in with home-schooling parents outside Myrtle Beach.
There, according to Jordan, the family referred to her as one of the
agency's &quot;birth mothers&quot;--a term adoption agencies use for relinquishing
mothers that many adoption reform advocates reject--although she hadn't
yet agreed to adoption. &quot;I felt like a walking uterus for the agency,&quot;
says Jordan.
</p>
<p>
Jordan was isolated in the shepherding family's house; her only social
contact was with the agency, which called her a &quot;saint&quot; for continuing
her pregnancy but asked her to consider &quot;what's best for the baby.&quot;
&quot;They come on really prolife: look at the baby, look at its heartbeat,
don't kill it. Then, once you say you won't kill it, they ask, What can
you give it? You have nothing to offer, but here's a family that goes on
a cruise every year.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Jordan was given scrapbooks full of letters and photos from hopeful
adoptive parents hoping to stand out among the estimated 150 couples for
every available baby. Today the &quot;birthmother letters&quot; are on Bethany's
website: 500 couples who pay $14,500 to $25,500 for a domestic infant
adoption, vying for mothers' attention with profuse praise of their
&quot;selflessness&quot; and descriptions of the lifestyle they can offer.
</p>
<p>
Jordan selected a couple, and when she went into labor, they attended
the birth, along with her counselor and shepherding mother. The next
day, the counselor said that fully open adoptions weren't legal in South
Carolina, so Jordan wouldn't receive identifying information on the
adoptive parents. Jordan cried all day and didn't think she could
relinquish the baby. She called her shepherding parents and asked if she
could bring the baby home. They refused, chastising Jordan sharply. The
counselor told the couple Jordan was having second thoughts and brought
them, sobbing, into her recovery room. The counselor warned Jordan that
if she persisted, she'd end up homeless and lose the baby anyway.
</p>
<p>
&quot;My options were to leave the hospital walking, with no money,&quot; says
Jordan. &quot;Or here's a couple with Pottery Barn furniture. You sacrifice
yourself, not knowing it will leave an impact on you and your child for
life.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
The next morning, Jordan was rushed through signing relinquishment
papers by a busy, on-duty nurse serving as notary public. As soon as
she'd signed, the couple left with the baby, and Jordan was taken home
without being discharged. The shepherding family was celebrating and
asked why Jordan wouldn't stop crying. Five days later, she used her
last $50 to buy a Greyhound ticket to Greenville, where she struggled
for weeks to reach a Bethany post-adoption counselor as her milk came in
and she rapidly lost more than fifty pounds in her grief.
</p>
<p>
When Jordan called Bethany's statewide headquarters one night, her
shepherding mother answered, responding coldly to Jordan's lament.
&quot;You're the one who spread your legs and got pregnant out of wedlock,&quot;
she told Jordan. &quot;You have no right to grieve for this baby.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Jordan isn't alone. On an adoption agency rating website, Bethany is
ranked poorly by birth mothers. Its adoptive parent ratings are higher,
although several adopters described the coercion they felt &quot;our birth
mother&quot; underwent. But neither is Bethany alone; in the constellation of
groups that constitute the Christian adoption industry, including CPCs,
maternity homes and adoption agencies, Bethany is just one large star.
And instances of coercion in adoption stretch back nearly seventy years.
</p>
<p>
Ann Fessler, author of <em>The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of
Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v.
Wade</em>, has meticulously chronicled the lives of women from the &quot;Baby
Scoop Era&quot;: the period from 1945 to 1973, when single motherhood was so
stigmatized that at least 1.5 million unwed American mothers
relinquished children for adoption, often after finishing pregnancies
secretly in maternity homes. The coercion was frequently brutal,
entailing severe isolation, shaming, withholding information about
labor, disallowing mothers to see their babies and coercing
relinquishment signatures while women were drugged or misled about their
rights. Often, women's names were changed or abbreviated, to bolster a
sense that &quot;the person who went away to deliver the baby was someone
else&quot; and that mothers would later forget about the babies they had
given up. In taking oral histories from more than a hundred Baby Scoop
Era mothers, Fessler found that not only was that untrue but most
mothers suffered lifelong guilt and depression.
</p>
<p>
The cultural shift that had followed World War II switched the emphasis
of adoption from finding homes for needy infants to finding children for
childless couples. Karen Wilson-Buterbaugh, founder of the Baby Scoop
Era Research Initiative, has compiled sociological studies from the era,
including Clark Vincent's speculation in his 1961 book <em>Unmarried
Mothers</em> that &quot;if the demand for adoptable babies continues to exceed
the supply...it is quite possible that, in the near future, unwed
mothers will be 'punished' by having their children taken from them
right after birth&quot;--under the guise of protecting the &quot;best interests of
the child.&quot;
</p>
<p>
The Baby Scoop Era ended with <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, as abortion was
legalized and single motherhood gained acceptance. The resultant fall in
adoption rates was drastic, from 19.2 percent of white, unmarried
pregnant women in 1972 to 1.7 percent in 1995 (and lower among women of
color). Coinciding with this decline was the rise of the religious right
and the founding of crisis pregnancy centers. 
</p>
<p>
In 1984 Leslee Unruh, founder of Abstinence Clearinghouse, established a
CPC in South Dakota called the Alpha Center. The first center had opened
in 1967, but in 1984 Unruh's CPC was still a relatively new idea. In
1987 the state attorney's office investigated complaints that Unruh had
offered young women money to carry their pregnancies to term and then
relinquish their babies for adoption. 
</p>
<p>
&quot;There were so many allegations about improper adoptions being made and
how teenage girls were being pressured to give up their children,&quot;
then-state attorney Tim Wilka told the <em>Argus Leader</em>, that the
governor asked him to take the case. The Alpha Center pleaded no contest
to five counts of unlicensed adoption and foster care practices;
nineteen other charges were dropped, including four felonies. But where
Unruh left off, many CPCs and antiabortion groups have taken up in her
place.
</p>
<p>
It's logical that antiabortion organizations seeking to prevent
abortions and promote traditional family structures would aggressively
promote adoption, but this connection is often overlooked in the
bipartisan support that adoption promotion enjoys as part of a
common-ground truce in the abortion wars. In President Obama's speech at
Notre Dame, he suggested that one solution to lowering abortion rates is
&quot;making adoption more available.&quot; And in a recent online debate,
<em>Slate</em> columnist William Saletan and Beliefnet editor Steven
Waldman proposed that unmarried women be offered a nominal cash payment
to choose adoption over abortion as a compromise between prochoice and
prolife convictions. 
</p>
<p>
Compared with pre-<em>Roe</em> days, today women with unplanned
pregnancies have access to far more information about their
alternatives. However, Fessler says, they frequently encounter CPCs that
pressure them to give the child to a family with better resources. &quot;Part
of the big picture for a young woman who's pregnant,&quot; she says, &quot;is that
there are people holding out their hand, but the price of admission is
giving up your child. If you decide to keep your child, it's as if
you're lost in the system, whereas people fight over you if you're ready
to surrender. There's an organization motivated by a cause and profit.
It's a pretty high price to pay: give away your first-born, and we'll
take care of you for six months.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Christian adoption agencies court pregnant women through often
unenforceable promises of open adoption and the option to choose the
adoptive parents. California's Lifetime Adoption Foundation even offers
birth mothers college scholarships. Additionally, maternity homes have
made a comeback in recent years, with one network of 1,100 CPCs and
homes, Heartbeat International, identifying at least 300 homes in the
United States. Some advertise almost luxurious living facilities, though
others, notes Jessica DelBalzo, founder of an anti-adoption group,
Adoption: Legalized Lies, continue to &quot;bill themselves as homes for
wayward girls who need to be set straight.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Most homes are religiously affiliated, and almost all promote adoption.
Many, like Christian Homes and Family Services (CHFS), reserve their
beds for women planning adoption. Others keep only a fraction for women
choosing to parent. Most homes seamlessly blend their advertised crisis
pregnancy counseling with domestic and international adoption services,
and oppose unmarried parenthood as against &quot;God's plan for the family.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Religious women may be particularly susceptible to CPC coercion, argues
Mari Gallion, a 39-year-old Alaska mother who founded the support group
SinglePregnancy.com after a CPC unsuccessfully pressured her to
relinquish her child ten years ago. Gallion, who has worked with nearly
3,000 women with unplanned pregnancies, calls CPCs &quot;adoption rings&quot; with
a multistep agenda: evangelizing; discovering and exploiting women's
insecurities about age, finances or parenting; then hard-selling
adoption, portraying parenting as a selfish, immature choice. &quot;The women
who are easier to coerce in these situations are those who subscribe to
conservative Christian views,&quot; says Gallion. &quot;They'll come in and be
told that, You've done wrong, but God will forgive you if you do the
right thing.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Mirah Riben, vice president of communications for the birth mother group
Origins-USA, as well as author of <em>The Stork Market: America's
Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry</em>, says that many
mothers struggle for decades with the fallout of &quot;a brainwashing
process&quot; that persuades them to choose adoption and often deny for
years--or until their adoptions become closed--that they were pressured
into it. &quot;I see a lot of justification among the young mothers. If their
adoption is remaining open, they need to be compliant, good birth
mothers and toe the line. They can't afford to be angry or bitter,
because if they are, the door will close and they won't see the kid.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Such was the case for Karen Fetrow, a Pennsylvania mother who
relinquished her son in 1994 through a Bethany office outside
Harrisburg. Fetrow, a formerly pro-adoption evangelical, sought out a
Christian agency when she became pregnant at 24. Although Fetrow was in
a committed relationship with the father, now her husband of sixteen
years, Bethany told her that women who sought to parent were on their
own. 
</p>
<p>
After Fetrow relinquished her son, she says she received no counseling
from Bethany beyond one checkup phone call. Three months later, Bethany
called to notify her that her legal paperwork was en route but that she
shouldn't read it or attend court for the adoption finalization. &quot;I
didn't know that the adoption wasn't final and that I had three months
to change my mind,&quot; says Fetrow. &quot;The reality was that if I had gone, I
might have changed my mind--and they didn't want me to.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Although for thirteen years Fetrow couldn't look at an infant without
crying, she continued to support adoption and CPCs. But when she sought
counseling--a staple of Bethany's advertised services--the director of
her local office said he couldn't help. When her son turned 5, she
stopped receiving updates from his adoptive parents, although she'd
expected they would continue until he was 18. She asked Bethany about
it, and the agency stalled for three years before explaining that the
adoptive parents had only agreed to five years of updates. Fetrow
complained on Bethany's online forum and was banned from the site. 
</p>
<p>
Kris Faasse, director of adoption services at Bethany, said that while
she was unaware of Fetrow's and Jordan's particular stories, their
accounts are painful for her to hear. &quot;The fact that this happens to any
mom grieves me and would not be how we wanted to handle it.&quot; She added
that only 25-40 percent of women who come to Bethany choose adoption,
which, she said, &quot;is so important, because we never want a woman to feel
coerced into a plan.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Shortly after Fetrow was banned from Bethany's forum, the local Bethany
office attempted to host a service at her church, &quot;painting adoption as
a Christian, prolife thing.&quot; At a friend's urging, Fetrow told her
pastor about her experience, and after a meeting with the Bethany
director--who called Fetrow angry and bitter--the pastor refused to let
Bethany address the congregation. But Fetrow's pastor seems an
exception.
</p>
<p>
In recent years, the antiabortion push for adoption has been taken up as
a broader evangelical cause. In 2007 Focus on the Family hosted an
Evangelical Orphan Care and Adoption Summit in Colorado Springs. Ryan
Dobson, the adopted son of Focus founder James Dobson, has campaigned on
behalf of CHFS and Unruh's Alpha Center. Last year 600 church and
ministry leaders gathered in Florida to promote adoption through the
Christian Alliance for Orphans. And a recent book in the idiosyncratic
genre of prolife fiction, <em>The River Nile</em>, exalted a clinic that
tricked abortion-seeking women into adoption instead. 
</p>
<p>
Such enthusiasm for Christians to adopt en masse begins to seem like a
demand in need of greater supply, and this is how critics of current
practices describe it: as an industry that coercively separates willing
biological parents from their offspring, artificially producing
&quot;orphans&quot; for Christian parents to adopt, rather than helping birth
parents care for wanted children.
</p>
<p>
In 1994 the <em>Village Voice</em> investigated several California CPCs in
Care Net, the largest network of centers in the country, and found gross
ethical violations at an affiliated adoption agency, where director
Bonnie Jo Williams secured adoptions by warning pregnant women about
parenthood's painfulness, pressuring them to sign papers under heavy
medication and in one case detaining a woman in labor for four hours in
a CPC. 
</p>
<p>
There were nineteen lawsuits against CPCs between 1983 and 1996, but
coercive practices persist. Joe Soll, a psychotherapist and adoption
reform activist, says that CPCs &quot;funnel people to adoption agencies who
put them in maternity homes,&quot; where ambivalent mothers are subjected to
moralistic and financial pressure: warned that if they don't give up
their babies, they'll have to pay for their spot at the home, and given
conflicted legal counsel from agency-retained lawyers. Watchdog group
Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch described an Indiana woman misled into
delaying an abortion past her state's legal window and subsequently
pressured into adoption.
</p>
<p>
Literature from CPCs indicates their efforts to raise adoption rates. In
2000 the Family Research Council (FRC), the political arm of Focus on
the Family, commissioned a study on the dearth of adoptable babies being
produced by CPCs, &quot;The Missing Piece: Adoption Counseling in Pregnancy
Resource Centers,&quot; written by the Rev. Curtis Young, former director of
Care Net. 
</p>
<p>
Young based the report on the market research of consultant Charles
Kenny, who questioned women with unplanned pregnancies and Christian CPC
counselors to identify obstacles to higher adoption rates. Young argued
that mothers' likelihood to choose adoption was based on their level of
maturity and selflessness, with &quot;more mature respondents...able to feel
they are nurturing not only their children, but also, the adoptive
parents,&quot; and &quot;less mature women&quot; disregarding the baby's needs by
seeking to parent. He wrote that CPCs might persuade reluctant women by
casting adoption as redemption for unwed mothers' &quot;past failures&quot; and a
triumph over &quot;selfishness, an 'evil' within themselves.&quot; Though Young
noted that some CPCs were wary of looking like &quot;baby sellers,&quot; he
nonetheless urged close alliances with adoption agencies to ensure that
the path to adoption was &quot;as seamless and streamlined as possible.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Young was speaking to a larger audience than the FRC faithful. Care
Net runs 1,160 CPCs nationwide and partners with Heartbeat
International to host a national CPC hot line. Kenny is tied to the
cause as a &quot;Bronze&quot;-level benefactor of the National Council for
Adoption (NCFA), the most prominent adoption lobby group in the
country, in the company of other benefactors like Bethany; Texas
maternity home giant Gladney; the Good Shepherd Sisters, a Catholic
order serving &quot;young women of dissolute habits&quot;; and the Mormon
adoption agency LDS Family Services.
</p>
<p>
The federally funded NCFA has a large role in spreading teachings like
these through its Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program, a
Department of Health and Human Services initiative it helped pass in
2000 that has promoted adoption to nearly 18,000 CPC, school, state,
health and correctional workers since 2002. Although the program
stipulates &quot;nondirective counseling for pregnant women,&quot; it was
developed by a heavily pro-adoption pool of experts, including Kenny,
and the Guttmacher Institute reports that trainees have complained about
the program's coercive nature.
</p>
<p>
In 2007 the FRC and NCFA went beyond overlapping mandates to collaborate
on the publication of another pamphlet, written by Kenny, &quot;Birthmother,
Goodmother: Her Story of Heroic Redemption,&quot; which targets &quot;potential
birthmothers&quot; before pregnancy: a seeming contradiction of abstinence
promotion, unless, as DelBalzo wryly notes, the abstinence movement
intends to create &quot;more babies available for adoption.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Even as women have gained better reproductive healthcare access,
adoption laws have become less favorable for birth mothers, advancing
the time after birth when a mother can relinquish--in some states now
within twenty-four hours--and cutting the period to revoke consent
drastically or completely. Adoption organizations have published
comparative lists of state laws, almost as a catalog for prospective
adopters seeking states that restrict birth parent rights. Among the
worst is Utah.
</p>
<p>
Jo Anne Swanson, a court-appointed adoption intermediary, has studied a
number of cases in which women have been lured out of their home states
to give birth and surrender their children under Utah's lax laws--which
require only two witnesses for relinquishments that have occurred in
hotel rooms or parks--to avoid interstate child-placement regulations.
Some women who changed their minds had agencies refuse them airfare
home. And one Utah couple, Steve and Carolyn Mintz, told the <em>Salt
Lake Tribune</em> that the director of their adoption agency flew into a
rage at a mother in labor who'd backed out of their adoption, and the
mother and her infant ended up in a Salt Lake City homeless shelter.
Many complaints have been lodged by birth fathers who sought to parent
their children but were disenfranchised by Utah's complicated system of
registering paternity.
</p>
<p>
Utah isn't alone in attacking birth fathers' rights. From 2000 to 2001,
a Midwestern grandmother named Ann Gregory (a pseudonym) fought doggedly
for her son, a military enlistee, to retain parental rights over his and
his girlfriend's child. When the girlfriend became pregnant, her
conservative evangelical parents brought her to a local CPC affiliated
with their megachurch. The CPC was located in the same office as an
adoption agency: its &quot;sister organization&quot; of eighteen years. The CPC
called Gregory's son, who was splitting his time between home and boot
camp, pressuring him to &quot;be supportive&quot; of his girlfriend by signing
adoption papers. The agency also called Gregory and her ex-husband,
quoting Scripture &quot;about how we're all adopted children of Jesus
Christ.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
What followed, Gregory says, was &quot;six weeks of pure hell,&quot; as she felt
her son and his girlfriend were &quot;brainwashed&quot; into adoption. She
researched coercive adoption and retained a lawyer for her son. When the
mother delivered, the attorney had Gregory notify a hospital social
worker that parental rights were being contested, so the baby wouldn't
be relinquished. Two days later, as the adoption agency was en route to
take custody, Gregory filed an emergency restraining order. The matter
had to be settled in court, where Gregory's son refused to consent to
adoption. The legal bill for two weeks came to $9,000.
</p>
<p>
Both parents went to college, and though they are no longer together,
Gregory praises their cooperation in jointly raising their son, now 8.
But she is shaken by what it took to prevail. &quot;You've got to get on it
before the child is born, and you'd better have $10,000 sitting around.
I can't even imagine how they treat those in a worse position than us.
They say they want to help people in a crisis pregnancy, but really they
want to help themselves to a baby.&quot;
</p>
<p>
&quot;A lot of those moms from the '50s and '60s were really damaged by
losing their child through the maternity homes,&quot; says Gregory. &quot;People
say those kinds of things don't happen anymore. But they do. It's just
not a maternity home on every corner; it's a CPC.&quot;
</p>
<h2><br />
</h2>    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Eight Is Not Enough? The Big Families We Love to Hate</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/05/eight-is-not-enough-california-octuplets" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/05/eight-is-not-enough-california-octuplets</id>
    <published>2009-02-05T17:44:17-05:00</published>
    <updated>2009-02-09T13:33:27-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kathryn Joyce</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="assisted reproductive technologies" />
    <category term="California octuplets" />
    <category term="Childbirth" />
    <category term="IVF" />
    <category term="multiple births" />
    <category term="parenting" />
    <category term="Video" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><!--paging_filter-->After a brief moment of "miracle news" coverage when the successful delivery of the California octuplets was first announced, criticism of the mother and her doctors began to mount from across the ideological spectrum.    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><p>
It's often a funny thing when right and left agree, as did
many vocal commentators across the ideological spectrum this week in condemning
Nadya Suleman, the mother of the California octuplets conceived by in vitro
fertilization and delivered last week by a team of 46 doctors and nurses. Such
a large number of multiple births is so rare, many media reports pointed out, that
only one previous example of octuplets exists in U.S history. It's also so rare
that Microsoft Word's spellcheck doesn't recognize the word &quot;octuplet,&quot; as
several online commenters reported. This response in itself, speaking to the
volumes of Internet opinionating the octuplets have inspired, gives some indication
of how completely the controversy has transformed from a story based in solid facts
- of which there are still very few so far - into the latest projection screen
for fertility and childbirth controversies.   
</p>
<p>
<strong>Big Families We Love, and Love to Hate</strong> 
</p>
<div style="float:right;padding:7px;margin:10px;background:#eee">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XPTofAJxM6I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="275" height="225"></embed>
<p style="width:275px">Nadya Suleman's interview with Ann Curry on the Today Show</p>
</div>
<p>
Suleman's newborns were delivered, as it were, into a pop cultural moment of preoccupation with large
families. Reality TV shows about families with many children abound on TV's TLC
channel, most notably with the chronicles of the 18-child Duggar family. That the Duggars are grounded in and motivated by the pro-patriarchy Quiverfull movement, with its
emphasis on female submission and male headship, is breezily dispensed with in
favor of dwelling on the sentimental and zany experiences of life in a
20-person family. &quot;Jon and Kate Plus Eight,&quot; another reality TV show about a
large family - this one the result of sextuplets born to a mother who, like
Suleman, chose not to selectively reduce the number of embryos that &quot;took&quot;
during an IVF treatment - is less burdened by the extremist ideology that
undergirds the Duggars' convictions, but still presents a traditional picture
of large family life, with married heterosexual parents and a stay-at-home
mother. Though it's now impossible to separate the public reaction to Suleman's
delivery from the swirl of facts and speculation about her motivations and
mental health, it seems clear enough that much of the ire directed at her is
due to her unorthodox family situation and her singleness most of all. While
many observers are concerned with her apparent inability to support such a
large family, the fact that she is unmarried has alone been cause enough for others
to declare her family a situation of de facto child abuse. 
</p>
<p>
<strong>Finding the Facts</strong> 
</p>
<p>
Probably most readers know what there is to know about the
story so far - what there is to know limited by the fact that Suleman hasn't talked
publicly about her pregnancy. What is left are slivers of information from interviews
with family members and neighbors. Nadya Suleman, a single mother and unemployed
student with a degree in child and
adolescent development, was an only child, and always wanted a large family.
According to some, she aimed for 12 children in total, or maybe, after the six
she already had through IVF, just one more girl. Her parents apparently
recently declared bankruptcy, and moved with Suleman into a 3-bedroom house
they'd bought for her, where they helped her care for her already-large family.
When controversy erupted, Suleman quickly retained a spokeswoman, which, with
her reported target of a $2 million appearance on Oprah, sealed her public
persona as American villain rather than American sweetheart. Sadder facts of
the story include the interviews with Suleman's mother, Angela Suleman, who has
hinted at possible mental illness in her daughter by venting her frustration
with her daughter's &quot;obsession&quot; with children. Another poignant detail is the
report that Suleman's father, reportedly a Palestinian-born linguist, may have to
return to a contract position in Iraq to raise money for the care of his
daughter's 14-child family. 
</p>
<p>
<strong>When &quot;Miracle News&quot; Sours</strong> 
</p>
<p>
After a brief moment
of &quot;miracle news&quot; coverage when the successful delivery was first announced,
criticism of Suleman and her unnamed doctors began to mount from across the
ideological spectrum. The hospital where she delivered reported receiving
numerous calls demanding that their medical license be revoked and even several
from people wishing the Suleman babies wouldn't survive. More common were the
concerns, on the left, that the children would be neglected or that they
constituted an environmentally hazardous selfishness, and on the right, the
charge that Suleman was the end result of a culture that condones single parenthood and
glorifies individual choice above all other considerations. 
</p>
<p>
Individual choice
didn't seem to be a particular concern throughout the debate though, which has
been marked by highly moralistic overtones in discussing whether or not
Suleman's pregnancy should have been &quot;allowed&quot; to take place. On liberal websites, a surprising hostility to Suleman’s right to have made such reproductive decisions has been common, taking issue with whether Suleman was entitled to choose to have so many children in her circumstances, seeming to embrace a sort of anti-choice rhetoric. (Though it’s worth noting that OB-GYN Amy Tuteur, writing on Salon, makes a convincing argument for limiting “right to choose” analogies, as endless comparisons to abortion rights only serve to distort discussions of medical ethics.) And on some conservative websites, there has been an equally surprising insistence that
Suleman should have been forced to abort some of the embryos. A number of
fertility doctors contacted to give expert opinions seemed to rush to distance
themselves from what one bioethicist, M. Sara Rosenthal, called an &quot;outrageous&quot;
breach of medical protocol. While the implantation of eight embryos, if it did
occur - and this seems up for debate as well, as
Angela Suleman told the AP that &quot;far fewer&quot; than eight embryos were implanted
in her daughter, and that they then apparently multiplied - would certainly be beyond the pale by almost
all medical standards, some of the pronouncements of fertility ethics had an
unsettling whiff of paternalism. One article discussed how responsible doctors
may have to &quot;<a href="http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-02-04/story/locals_join_in_octuplet_debate">simply
[say] no</a>,&quot; to women seeking multiple implantations in order to &quot;be a strong
and responsible advocate for moms and babies.&quot; In an interview with <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/30/embryos.ethics/index.html">CNN</a>,
Rosenthal raised the neonatalist theory that women may not have the emotional capacity to make proper decisions when informed about
the risks of premature births due to the distress such news may cause them. 
</p>
<p>
<strong>What's Desirable vs. What's Allowed</strong> 
</p>
<p>
This sort of language and
reasoning, at least taking place as a debate in the non-expert arena of the
media, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2164512/">seems too familiar for
comfort</a>, echoing the sort of anti-abortion rhetoric Justice Anthony Kennedy
relied upon in the 2007 <em>Carhart</em> case:
that abortion is not a crime women commit, but one they need to be protected
from by those who know better. The danger of slipping into that territory, of
empowering doctors to determine women's reproductive best interests, seems
enough justification to allow for cases that offend public sensibility. As Sean
Tipton, spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, explained,
&quot;A number of commentators are saying a woman with six
kids should not be allowed medical treatment to have additional ones, and I
think, at a common sense level, that makes good sense. However, to make that
work, that means someone is going to start deciding for other people how, when
and why they can have children. That's a very big step and one that we might
not be prepared to take.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
But in contrast to
that reasonable estimation of the difference between what's desirable and
what's allowed, is the overlap of criticism between camps that would normally
be at ideological ends. Both conservative and liberal commenters loudly
wondered who, in this moment of financial meltdown, was going to pay for all of
this. Right-wing California shock jock Bill Handel declared the births
&quot;freakish,&quot; and <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilIx-PXnXPpwF1a_nlRYF00fzBIQD964FOAO0">announced</a>
that people were &quot;ready to boycott any corporations that help the octuplets or
their mother.&quot; Likewise, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/31/nadya-suleman-octuplets-m_n_162756.html?page=8">commenters</a>
discussing the story on liberal site Huffington Post suggested that if Oprah
did host Suleman on her show, viewers should boycott Oprah as well. (Neither side
should likely worry, as the AP reported on the snubbing response of Pampers and
Gerbers officials, who donated little or nothing to the Suleman family.
Television station TLC has said that, while it has contacted the Sulemans about
television opportunities, it's holding off any production decisions until they
determine how &quot;TV-friendly&quot; the family proves.) A comment thread
<a href="http://www.yelp.com/topic/los-angeles-octuplets-born-in-bellflower-she-better-not-be-on-welfare">title</a> on Yelp summed up the sentiment of many: &quot;Octuplets born in
Bellflower, she better not be on Welfare!!&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Indeed, a number of
feminist writers remarked on how closely the outrage over Suleman mirrored old
&quot;welfare queen&quot; tropes, where large families weren't seen as miraculous or a <em>Cheaper By the Dozen</em> adventure - as more
traditionalistic large families are often portrayed on TV and in popular media
- but as burdens to the state, brought on by an irresponsible mother. Lynn
Paltrow, Executive Director of the National Advocates for Pregnant
Women, told Salon's <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/02/03/american_parenting_idol/index.html">Broadsheet</a>
that perceived race of mothers was often a key component of how stories of
large families were treated in the media. &quot;When the pregnant woman is not brown
or black and the drugs/technologies are provided by big pharma, the discussion
focuses on questions of ethics. But if the issue is childbearing by low-income
women of color, and the drug is homegrown/illegal then the debate is a
question of punishment through the criminal justice or civil child welfare
system.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
This angle was sadly
confirmed by some <a href="http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=10987">blog</a>
comments speculating whether the name &quot;Suleman&quot; had a &quot;very ethnic ring to it -
Middle Eastern in fact.&quot; Conservative blogger Phyllis Chesler took these
insinuations a <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/02/02/octuplets-a-frankenstinian-moment-in-modern-obstetrics/">few
steps farther</a>, swiftly dispatching with the makeup of America's most prominent
pronatalist activists - complementarian conservative Chrsitians - to hang the
mantle of over-the-top procreation on fundamentalist Mormon polygamists and
Muslims (whom she refers to as &quot;outlawed, break-away Mormon and law-abiding
Muslim men,&quot; in case her meaning isn't clear). After noting that &quot;Osama bin
Laden's father had 57 children,&quot; Chesler wonders whether Suleman's ethnicity is
determining her family size, writing, &quot;Once this gets out-will she become a
poster child/mother for....free baby formula and diapers? Or for Jihad?&quot; 
</p>
<p>
More commonly, the
indictments were more subtle, as characterized by Townhall conservative
columnist Mona Charen, whose reaction was to blame the octuplets on
as-yet-unmarried California Representative Linda Sanchez, who announced her
pregnancy last November. 
</p>
<p>
<strong>Different Judgments for Different Families</strong> 
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/02/the_octuplets.html#more">Jill
Stanek</a>, a veteran anti-choice activist who opposes IVF, condemned Suleman
as well, albeit somewhat reluctantly. &quot;The question I'm hearing often asked,
‘Can one have too many children?'&quot; she wrote, &quot;is wrong. No, one cannot.
But God didn't intend for human mothers to give birth to litters, particularly
with no husbands in sight. It's unnatural on all levels.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Some of Stanek's ardently
anti-abortion readers were harsher, with one declaring that &quot;[Suleman's] mentality is abortion mentality: ‘I will
decide who lives, who dies, when I have children.' I bet she isn't even
infertile!&quot; the writer continued, &quot;Just hates men!&quot; This level of vitriol
sparked Stanek to defend Suleman, and to come to the surprising defense that &quot;sexism
at play here. Were Suleman married, no one would be questioning her motive for
becoming pregnant with multiples.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
That’s not quite true. The large families promoted most ardently by the pronatalist “Quiverfull” wing of the anti-abortion movement strongly emphasize the importance of not planning one’s family – either by limiting it or artificially enlarging it – viewing such self-determination, even in the interests of growing a family, as the root of the reproductive choices they condemn. Though certainly many would be more accepting of a large family that had IVF children than they are of those who choose contraception or abortion, most hold, as one of Stanek's commenters writes, that &quot;If one believes as I do that God determines fertility, then one believes that in a proper husband-wife relationship God will supply a large family's needs.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Among the movement
of purposefully very large families in the U.S., this is the predominant conviction, almost universally accompanied by an extreme traditionalism in marriage roles that holds women's prolific fertility up
not as one option to choose but as the only righteous path for true believers.
Suleman's family size may approximate that of the Duggars and other families at
the forefront of a theological movement that stresses traditional gender roles
above all other concerns, but that is likely where the resemblance ends. In
terms of reproductive matters of national concern, one woman's idiosyncratic
and likely tragic choices seem to pale beside a movement that insists on
similarly large and labor-intensive broods of children for women and raises
daughters to see this as the only blueprint for their lives. It says something
about where we are as a country that the former isolated case attracts more
concern than the existence of the latter as a growing movement. 
</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Untold Consequences: Rick Warren&#039;s AIDS Activism</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism</id>
    <published>2008-12-19T13:51:24-05:00</published>
    <updated>2008-12-23T14:16:26-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kathryn Joyce</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <category term="HIV/AIDS" />
    <category term="PEPFAR" />
    <category term="Real Rick Warren" />
    <category term="Rick Warren" />
    <category term="women and HIV" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[Rick Warren's AIDS work in Africa supposed to negate his anti-gay and anti-choice advocacy. But Warren's AIDS activism is nearly as troubling as the rest of his ideology.    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<blockquote>
	<div class="content">
	<p>
	Editor's Note, December 22, 2008, 5:19pm: In the post below,
	Kathryn Joyce writes that “[Rick] Warren and his fellow evangelicals
	brought new visibility to the issue; simultaneously, faith-based AIDS
	groups such as Kay Warren's HIV/AIDS Initiative at Saddleback Church
	began receiving significant funding through PEPFAR and disbursing it to
	organizations on the ground that follow their religious guidelines.”
	</p>
	<p>
	Kay Warren wrote a comment on the post stating: “Saddleback Church [has] not received a penny of PEPFAR money.” 
	</p>
	<p>
	Due to an editing error, the statement was indeed
	incorrect and has now been deleted. Records publicly available from the website of the Office of
	the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) do not show Saddleback Church as a
	direct recipient of PEPFAR funding. 
	</p>
	<p>
	However, expert sources for this article underscored that while there
	is no known direct funding link between Saddleback and PEPFAR, the key
	question is which of the <a href="http://www.rwandahealthcare.com/pages/project_partners">organizations and churches in various countries affiliated with Saddleback</a>
	have received funding from PEPFAR. RH Reality Check is investigating
	these links and will report back to our readers on this issue when we
	return from our publishing hiatus in January.
	</p>
	</div>
</blockquote>
<p>
The outcry among progressives since Wednesday, when
President-elect Obama announced that Saddleback megachurch pastor Rick Warren
would deliver the inaugural invocation, has been profound.  Supporters of reproductive and LGBT rights
recalled Warren's many insults to their causes: his comparison of pro-choice
supporters to Holocaust deniers and of gays to pedophiles; his &quot;ambush&quot; of
Obama during the election campaign's first (albeit unofficial) debate at
Saddleback Church; and his general embodiment, beneath his jolly Hawaiian
shirts and &quot;new evangelical&quot; concerns for AIDS, poverty and climate change, of
religious right intolerance. 
</p>
<p>
It's possible that Obama's selection of Warren was a move
designed to outrage, as Salon's Mike Madden <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/19/rick_warren/?source=newsletter">writes</a>, noting that the two figures have
consistently used each other politically, to signal to that they're willing to
anger and depart from their friends. But Warren's
undeserved reputation as a new-breed &quot;moderate&quot; evangelical, with his benevolent
AIDS work in Africa supposed to negate his
anti-gay and anti-choice advocacy at home, rests on a deeply flawed foundation.
Warren's AIDS activism is nearly as troubling as the rest of his ideology
(which even he acknowledges only differs from James Dobson's in style). 
</p>
<p>
Warren's transformation into the evangelical AIDS &quot;it
person&quot; is relatively recent. Earlier this month, on World AIDS Day, he <a href="http://www.faithandaction.org/2008/12/02/rick-warren-presents-intl-medal-of-peace-to-president-bush/">awarded</a>
President Bush his ministry's first international P.E.A.C.E. award for
contributions to fighting HIV/AIDS. Warren's own AIDS work, together with his
wife Kay, began in 2002, <a href="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/rick.warren.aids.summit.aims.to.disturb.christians/15026.htm">ostensibly</a> when Kay read a magazine article
about the burgeoning population of AIDS orphans in Africa. That year, Warren
led a group of evangelical churches in pushing a reluctant Bush administration
to adopt a global AIDS policy, resulting in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, launched in
2003. 
</p>
<p>
&quot;For all intents and purposes, [PEPFAR] was a good thing to
do,&quot; says Jodi Jacobson, consultant for RH Reality Check and the founder and former executive director of the <a href="http://www.genderhealth.org/">Center for
Health and Gender Equity</a> (CHANGE), an NGO that promotes sexual and
reproductive health and rights. &quot;But with the entry of evangelical churches, in
alliance with the Catholic Church, all funding for prevention became very
fraught.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
A division of aims within the global AIDS movement between
those advocating for prevention funding and those working for treatment access helped
draw faith-based groups. Though treatment and prevention are complementary in
fighting HIV/AIDS, the entry of religious right activists exacerbated this
divide between the two priorities. Treatment access advocates sought out partnership
with evangelicals hoping for increased funding and attention for expensive
treatment programs. But the faith-based solution naturally brought with it
skewed policies that limited prevention options and led to what Jacobson calls
the &quot;profoundly ineffective&quot; spending of AIDS money: with $20 billion spent on
treatment over the past five years, but six new infections for every person
treated. &quot;No one doesn't want people to have access to treatment,&quot; she says.
&quot;But my argument is about the tradeoff. You can't treat your way out of this
epidemic.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
But churches anxious to follow Warren's lead didn't want to
provide comprehensive HIV prevention services, such as safer sex education or
condoms, so they lobbied for PEPFAR funding policy to be interpreted narrowly,
creating stand-alone abstinence-until-marriage programs out of the law's 30%
abstinence-only earmark. The new faith-based arm of the AIDS movement Warren
had energized asked for, and got, a number of obstacles to prevention services:
a prohibition on needle exchange programs for drug users; a ban family planning
services in Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission clinics;
and the anti-prostitution loyalty oath, which required all groups receiving
PEPFAR funding, including those that work with sex workers, to condemn
prostitution. As with conscience clauses, Jacobson says, this ideological
interpretation of PEPFAR became a source of U.S. funding that &quot;allows groups or
organizations to avoid having to provide prevention treatment or care according
to evidence-based criteria.&quot; The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation has stated that &quot;PEPFAR has been successful not because of provisions such as the mandatory abstinence set-aside, but in spite of them.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Warren and his fellow evangelicals brought new visibility to
the issue; simultaneously, faith-based AIDS groups brought a faith-based, rather than evidence-based, agenda to HIV prevention work. In Kay Warren's <a href="http://www.kaywarren.com/hivaidsinitiative.html">HIV/AIDS
Initiative at Saddleback Church</a>, that includes the core
argument that &quot;healthy choices&quot; require faithfulness to the principle of abstinence,
and &quot;faithfulness requires faith&quot;: an evangelical priority that echoes her
husband's <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=45039">reassurance</a> to the far-right World Net Daily that his number
one priority in his AIDS work was the salvation of non-Christians.  Warren
has made clear that his collaboration with non-evangelical AIDS activists
wouldn't lead him to compromise on his biblical convictions. 
</p>
<p>
&quot;As a pastor, my job is to
change behavior,&quot; Warren said. &quot;I'm going to be training pastors how
to teach behavior change.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
&quot;Despite his success in elevating the profile of the global HIV/AIDS
epidemic among communities of faith in the United States who previously
thought it was outside the scope of their concern, the prevention 
approach that Rick Warren promotes is riddled with hypermoralistic
dictates,&quot; says Ariana Childs Graham, international policy advocate at SIECUS. &quot;According to Warren, churches have a 'moral obligation' to
promote abstinence and faithfulness as the only health behavior,
ignoring the full range of prevention strategies that evidence has
demonstrated needs to be part of successful HIV-prevention
interventions.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
In 2005, PEPFAR increased its commitment to faith-based groups
through President Bush's <a href="http://www.pepfar.gov/c19532.htm">New Partners Initiative</a>, which sought to
tap churches and faith-based groups as funding recipients. &quot;What it meant is
that the old partners, the public health people who distributed condoms, were
disdained,&quot; says Jacobson. &quot;Then new partners, many of whom had never stepped
foot in Africa, were suddenly getting millions of dollars to go there. As far
as we were concerned, it was a slush fund for the far right.&quot; 
</p>
<p>
Progressive attempts to reform PEPFAR during its <a href="http://www.pepfarwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=127">reauthorization</a> process in February 2008
were heated. The late Rep. Tom Lantos championed a revision of the bill which
struck the abstinence-until-marriage earmark, the prostitution pledge, and
other prevention restrictions, and opened the door for PEPFAR programs that
integrated family planning with HIV prevention as a natural combination of
sexual health services. 
</p>
<p>
The response of Warren and his fellow conservative PEPFAR
supporters was cynical and swift. <a href="http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/72402245.html">Staging a press conference</a> on the day of
the National Prayer Breakfast, four days before Lantos's death, Warren joined a
menagerie of stalwart anti-choice leaders, including Reps. Chris Smith, Marilyn
Musgrave and Joe Pitts, and activists Wendy Wright, Chuck Colson and Day
Gardner. The group declared that the Lantos revision would &quot;pour billions into the hands of abortion providers with little or no
regard for the pro-life, pro-family cultures of recipient countries,&quot; strip
abstinence programs of their funding and, by lifting the prostitution pledge,
enable the sex trafficking of women. Lantos's reauthorization bill lost every
point on reproductive health, and PEPFAR was reauthorized in its flawed state. 
</p>
<p>
How that flawed policy plays out can be disastrous. As journalist
Michelle Goldberg <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/878/obama%E2%80%99s_divisive_choice_of_rick_warren_/">noted</a> at Religion Dispatches, one of
Warren's protégés in Uganda, the rabidly anti-gay pastor Martin Ssempa, has
interpreted Warren's faith-driven solutions to the HIV/AIDS epidemic by burning
condoms at universities and offering faith-healing to disease-stricken congregants.
Other PEPFAR grantees, as Jacobson's colleagues in the global AIDS movement
have witnessed, use their funds to promote fundamentalist interpretations of
marital roles, advising women that if their husbands beat them, they should try
harder to please them. 
</p>
<p>
&quot;We found enough examples of these things to make me very
worried,&quot; says Jacobson. 
</p>
<p>
Warren further entangles religion
and treatment in his very own &quot;<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1093746,00.html">Purpose-Driven Nation</a>,&quot; Rwanda. He offered to extend an undisclosed amount of
aid to the country if it adopted his bestselling book as an action plan for the
nation, using churches as centers for capacity building and American
evangelical leaders as medical and development advisors to the Rwandan
parliament. The plan included the provision of a set of development kits to
churches such as &quot;school in a box&quot; and &quot;clinic in a box,&quot; the latter of which
Warren says will eventually include AIDS medicines. The problem with this arrangement
is comparable to the problem with other faith-based initiatives entrusted with
the distribution of state services: that the provision of aid and services is
performed with state dollars but with no accountability regarding the fair and
non-coercive availability of that aid. Emmanuel Kolini, the Anglican archbishop of Rwanda, who called
homosexuality a form of moral genocide, is on the National Steering Committee of Saddleback Church's Western Rwanda HIV/AIDS Healthcare Initiative.
</p>
<p>
&quot;When such a high-profile, leading spokesman on an issue that
affects women and gay people and men who have sex with men and sex workers
reinforces messages of stigmatization of anyone who's different, it creates a
climate in which money is going to organizations that have little to no
accountability,&quot; says Jacobson. &quot;We don't know what's going on with these
groups abroad. In my mind it ties in to religious leaders who seek to heal the
sick, but on their terms or not at all.&quot;
</p>    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Christian Conservatives Seek to &quot;Restore&quot; Women</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/26/christian-conservatives-seek-restore-women" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/26/christian-conservatives-seek-restore-women</id>
    <published>2008-06-27T08:00:00-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-07-07T17:47:04-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kathryn Joyce</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="anti-trafficking" />
    <category term="Christian conseratives" />
    <category term="Prostitution" />
    <category term="religious right" />
    <category term="sex worker&#039;s rights" />
    <category term="sex workers" />
    <category term="Trafficking" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><!--paging_filter-->A leading figure in the Christian right anti-trafficking establishment, Linda Smith embodies the tensions between feminists and religious right activists working on this issue.    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<!--paging_filter--><p>
A recent issue of Focus on the Family's <a href="http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007670.cfm" target="_blank">Citizen</a>
magazine highlights the anti-sex trafficking work of Linda Smith, who
says she has &quot;spent 10 years of [her] life restoring little girls and
young women who have been in the commercial sex industry.&quot; If Smith's
terminology, &quot;restore,&quot; gives you the willies considering the subject
matter -- evoking not just new &quot;<a href="http://www.firstchoicemedicine.com/GYN/VSRS/vsrs.html" target="_blank">virginal restoration</a>&quot; services being bought everywhere from Hollywood to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/europe/11virgin.html?ref=europe" target="_blank">Muslim communities in Europe</a>,
but also the more general sense of the word, as repairing a broken or
used object, applied to women -- there's more to be find suspect in Focus
on the Family's praise for Smith, a leading figure in the Christian
right anti-trafficking establishment who embodies a lot of the tensions
in the alliance between <a href="http://www.alternet.org/rights/15947/" target="_blank">feminists and religious right activists</a> working on the issue.  
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Smith_%28politician%29" target="_blank">Linda Smith</a>,
a two-term Congressional representative from Washington state, who
broke into the House on a grassroots, Christian, write-in campaign, had
a 100% positive rating from the <a href="http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Linda_Smith.html" target="_blank">Christian Coalition</a>
for her staunchly conservative anti-abortion politics, and was profiled
in 1995 under the title &quot;Invasion of the Church Ladies&quot; by Hanna Rosin
for The New Republic, as part of a class of female
representatives-Smith's opponents dubbed her the &quot;Hazel Dell
Housewife&quot;-going to war in D.C. for traditional values. After a failed
Senate bid in 1998, Smith retired from political life-in a way-to begin
work on an anti-sex trafficking organization she founded, <a href="http://www.sharedhope.org/index.asp" target="_blank">Shared Hope International</a>, and which she considers her Christian &quot;ministry,&quot; though she's cagily <a href="http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2003/former.htm" target="_blank">told</a> supporters, &quot;If I ever advertised as a Christian, I can't do the work I do.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Smith hasn't quite left Washington though, appearing in congressional hearings in 2002 to <a href="http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-08-25/news/the-new-abolitionists.php/2" target="_blank">testify</a>
about her newfound convictions on sex trafficking, and continuing to
lead national campaigns on the issue, along with three other groups,
including two other religious groups, that make up the <a href="http://www.sharedhope.org/what/wata.asp" target="_blank">War Against Trafficking Alliance</a>,
an advocacy organization that provides trainings for governments and
NGOs with support from the Depts. of Justice and State. In Smith's own
SHI, she works to &quot;restore&quot; women who have been removed from
prostitution in a series of Christian-oriented and staffed &quot;Houses of
Hope&quot; that combine shelter from sex traffickers and pimps and a halfway
house work model: having the women work in bakeries and other small
businesses. In interviews with the <a href="http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-08-25/news/the-new-abolitionists.php/1" target="_blank">Seattle Times</a>
several years ago, Smith was vague about the houses' locations,
occupancy rates and business opportunities, preferring to linger on
details of the financial aid she and her husband bestowed on individual
rescued-and-restored women. Several &quot;Houses of Hope&quot; are now listed on
SHI's <a href="http://www.sharedhope.org/what/homesofhope.asp" target="_blank">website</a>.
</p>
<p>
Smith's focus, which is shared by a number of colleagues on the
religious right, who have made the issue a favored evangelical cause in
recent years, is <a href="http://www.bayswan.org/traffick/trafficking.html" target="_blank">criticized</a> by groups with a broader trafficking focus, who charge that the focus on &quot;sex slavery&quot; erases the <a href="http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archives/c2004sum_sextrafficking.asp" target="_blank">less sexy issue of plain labor trafficking and slavery</a>,
with workers forced into indentured servitude-like situations in
factories and fields, as well as by sex-worker advocacy groups who
complain that the sweeping targets of anti-sex trafficking work
includes women who choose sex work willingly and prioritizes
criminalizing all sex work-and demanding that NGOs that help sex
workers <a href="http://www.bayswan.org/gagorder/gag1.html" target="_blank">condemn those sex workers</a> in exchange for aid money-over helping ensure better working conditions for the women who engage in it. 
</p>
<p>
This much seems clear from Smith's testimony to Congress in 2002, where
she argued the absolutist position that countries with legalized or
tolerated prostitution provide &quot;cover for the traffickers,&quot; and should
be considered part of the problem. &quot;I encourage the administration to
consider countries with legalized or tolerated prostitution as having
laws that are insufficient to eliminate trafficking,&quot; she told the
congressional subcommittee, seeming to argue for an ever-murkier line
between any sex work and slavery. In this, Smith seems to agree with
feminist anti-prostitution purists who argue that there's no
substantive difference between prostitution and &quot;sex slave&quot;
trafficking: a rare instance of orthodox feminist theory making it into
the mainstream, albeit on the shoulders of the Christian right.
</p>
<p>
It's a tricky divide, as Smith's newest campaign, an investigation on &quot;<a href="http://www.sharedhope.org/imgs/files/DMSTPressRelease.pdf" target="_blank">domestic minor sex trafficking</a>,&quot;
aims to expand the definition of sex trafficking for good purpose:
relabeling the prostitution of U.S. children as domestic sex
trafficking so that the children will be eligible for the same
protections that foreign-born tracking victims are (brought to social
services instead of being arrested as prostitutes). It's an admirable
goal to enact a commonsense fix, but, as for Smith's broader goals, as
with other strange bedfellows coalitions, it's worth remembering that
Christian right muscle doesn't come without an <a href="http://www.frcblog.com/2007/03/no_aid_to_aids_groups_that_pro.html" target="_blank">orthodox price</a>.
</p>
<p> <em> Linda Smith appears on the Christian women's television talk show, Everyday Woman, to offer her take on anti-trafficking work. </em> </p>
<p>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RIyq62gKfIg&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RIyq62gKfIg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> </p>

<blockquote>
	<p>
	This piece first appeared on <a href="http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=BL&amp;Id=313">Religion Dispatches</a>. 
	</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
<strong>Related Posts</strong>
</p>
<ul>
	<li>Melissa Ditmore, <a href="/blog/2008/05/05/sex-work-trafficking-understanding-difference">Sex Work, Trafficking: Understanding the Difference</a> </li>
	<li>Melissa Ditmore, <a href="/blog/2008/05/16/whos-trafficked">Who's Trafficked?</a> </li>
	<li>Melissa Ditmore, <a href="/blog/2008/06/23/sex-workers-grateful-banki-moon">Punishing Sex Workers Won't Curb HIV/AIDS, Says Ban-Ki Moon</a> </li>
</ul>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>One Size Doesn&#039;t Fit All</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/22/one-size-doesnt-fit-all" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/22/one-size-doesnt-fit-all</id>
    <published>2008-04-22T09:53:21-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-04-22T11:49:22-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kathryn Joyce</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <category term="abortion" />
    <category term="AIDS" />
    <category term="Catholic Church" />
    <category term="HIV" />
    <category term="papal visit" />
    <category term="pope" />
    <category term="Pope in America" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>In 1968, Catholic Church doctrine forbade the use of contraception. Forty years later, the Church's teachings are irrelevant at best to American Catholics, but outright dangerous for those living in the developing world.</p>      ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>In the midst of the wall-to-wall press coverage of Pope Benedict XVI&#39;s visit to the U.S. last week, <a href="/%E2%80%9Chttp:/www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/nyregion/20spirit.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;ref=us%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">The New York Times</a> paused to note that many American Catholics pay little heed to papal authority, and instead bestow on the pope a particularly American commendation: they&#39;d love to sit down and chat with the man, Catholic to Catholic. However homey the image, a stained-glass rendition of the favored American method of choosing a president (sans beer), the Times also pointed out, in explaining the lack of official Church data on how Americans really feel about the authority of this or any pope, that the Church is not a democracy. And, despite how nonchalantly many Americans speak about the relevance of the Vatican on their lives, the effect of a hierarchy headed by a man who built his career on opposition to liberation and feminist theology is real, and renders liberal or pro-choice Catholics today dissenters criticizing doctrine from outside the Church. </p>
<p>While Benedict pointedly neglected to address the issues those dissenters press on - the bans on contraception, condom use, gay and lesbian rights, and ordination of women - the unbending position of the Vatican was made clear during a 60,000-person mass at Yankee Stadium on Sunday, where he reminded the throngs of faithful that obedience as a Catholic is non-optional.</p>
<p>&quot;Authority. Obedience. To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays, especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom,&quot; he told the crowd, continuing to <a href="/%E2%80%9Chttp:/catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12408%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">cite</a> the scriptural lesson that &quot;true freedom&quot; comes from turning from sin, from &quot;self-surrender&quot; and &quot;losing ourselves&quot;: an emphasis on hierarchy and submission more common to fundamentalist Christianity and orthodox doctrine across denominations than within the heterogeneous Catholic church itself. </p>
<p>It&#39;s also an unsubtle reminder that, however much American Catholics may disdain the 40-year old order of <a href="/%E2%80%9Chttp:/www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">Humane Vitae</a> -- that &quot;each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life&quot; -- following their own consciences on matters of artificial contraception is still an act of rebellion. </p>
<p>An immediate outpouring of dissent greeted the document in 1968, when 600 theologians protested the ruling, Rosemary Radford Ruether, a feminist theologian at the Pacific School of Religion, recalled on a conference call convened by Catholics for Choice to commemorate the document&#39;s fortieth anniversary. These theologians, she explains, were responding to the real consequences of Natural <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">Family Planning</acronym></a> -- the only method of birth control the Church had allowed since 1930, when it banned condoms and diaphragms in a renewed emphasis on Augustine&#39;s anti-contraception teachings -- in Catholics&#39; family life, where the anti-contraceptive emphasis &quot;almost began to seem the point of being a Catholic.&quot; As representatives of <a href="http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/120905/120905o.php" rel="nofollow">lay Catholic couples</a> testified to the 1966 Catholic Commission on Birth Control, the pressures of following NFP, and abstaining during infertile periods, led to great marital discord for Catholic couples. The priests on the Commission were shocked by the experiences of the laity, and voted overwhelmingly to recommend that birth control be allowed for married couples. A small group of anti-contraception dissenters created a second &quot;minority report&quot; for the pope, calling the Commission&#39;s conclusions threatening to the Church&#39;s authority, as the Church could not admit to having &quot;so wrongly erred during all those centuries of history.&quot; Four years later, it was this dissenting point of view that was reinforced in Humanae Vitae. </p>
<p>Today 97% of sexually active Catholic women use some form of contraception at some point, and, Radford Ruether says, many Catholic priests don&#39;t press the issue, considering it a &quot;teaching that has not been received&quot; by the people. Indeed, in 1974, 83% of Catholics said they disagreed with Humanae Vitae, and in 1999, according to the National Catholic Reporter, 80% of Catholics said they believed they could practice birth control and remain &quot;good Catholics&quot; (presumably leaving the remaining 17% guiltily disobedient). But despite this 40-year disconnect, which many theologians agree has led to greater skepticism about Church infallibility than acceptance of contraception ever could have, calls to liberalize the doctrine are repeatedly shot down with what theologian Anthony Padovano calls &quot;incredibly inflated language,&quot; such as Pope John Paul II&#39;s assertion that questioning the ban on contraception was equivalent to questioning the holiness of God. </p>
<p>How this plays out in day-to-day life, explains Mary Hunt, of the Women&#39;s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual, is that many Catholic women who approach their priests about contraception are given personal exemptions, while the same priests or bishops continue to preach against it in public. &quot;Many Catholics are disgusted by the duplicity, or at best they&#39;re confused,&quot; said Hunt. There is &quot;little evidence that those who believe contraception is healthy, good, natural and holy, as I do, have any input into Catholic theology.&quot; </p>
<p>Or, if they have a vote, it&#39;s one that can only be used once, in leaving the church. &quot;The Catholic hierarchy holds its power,&quot; says Hunt, &quot;and laypeople, many of them women, are walking away.&quot; Or, as Daniel Maguire, a professor of Moral Theological Ethics at Marquette  University who laments that the public face of the Church excludes dissenting theologians and laity, jokes, &quot;The current teaching of Catholic bishops is the making of Unitarians.&quot; On the eve of the Pope&#39;s visit, Catholics for Choice issued a publication studying the full impact of the contraceptive ban, <a href="http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/TruthConsequencesFINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">Truth and Consequences: A Look Behind the Vatican&#39;s Ban on Contraception</a> (PDF). </p>
<p>Perhaps the exodus of those Catholics who feel strongly about <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/131"><acronym title="Reproductive Health: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Health">reproductive health</acronym></a> and rights explains the sometimes confusing poll numbers attached to American Catholicism. For all that people obviously reject Catholic hierarchical teachings in practice, and tell pollsters the Church is &quot;out of touch&quot; on modern issues, there&#39;s a conflicting rise of believers who say they support the traditionalist path Pope Benedict XVI represents. According to a poll conducted by <a href="/%E2%80%9Chttp:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/14/ST2008041402045.html%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow">The Washington Post</a>, over the past five years, the percentage of Catholics who supported modernized doctrine from the Vatican has dwindled from 66% to 45%, and those who wanted the pope to &quot;emphasize Catholicism&#39;s traditional teachings and customs&quot; rose from one-third to one-half. </p>
<p>Maybe that rise in appreciation for tradition, even among believers who are flouting the doctrine, is because the impact of Vatican teachings is far less consequential in the U.S. than in developing nations where the Catholic hierarchy has a heavy hand in public policy, hampering condom distribution in Africa, <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/120"><acronym title="Emergency Contraception: Emergency contraception (also      known as EC, emergency birth control or the &amp;quot;morning after pill&amp;quot;) is a      safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72-120 hours      of unprotected intercourse.  Plan B      is a brand of EC, but certain birth control pills (oral contraceptives)      can also be prescribed for use as emergency contraception. EC is not an      abortifacient. (PPFA) ">emergency contraception</acronym></a> availability in South America, and family planning options for women in countries with high rates of maternal mortality. In Yankee Stadium, the pope&#39;s words on obedience may be a plea to a rich nation, but elsewhere, it&#39;s an enforceable demand. </p>
<p>&quot;The tragedy is that those of us in the Global North can circumvent any restrictions on contraception,&quot; says Catholics for Choice President Jon O&#39;Brien, reflecting a Vatican recognition that they&#39;ve &quot;lost the battle for our hearts and minds.&quot; Instead, the Vatican has taken their argument to the level of global public policy at the U.N., and exerts its influence most immediately on the developing nations of the Global South. There, says Mary Hunt, &quot;Anti-contraceptive theology, implemented in public policy, results in a lack of available, affordable birth control, and this plays a significant role in [maternal] deaths&quot; -- even as vast majorities of Latin American Catholics, including 87% of Colombian Catholics, 84% of Mexican Catholics, and 81% of Bolivian Catholics, believe you can use contraception and still be a good Catholic.  </p>
<p>Perhaps a greater awareness among the majority of Catholic laity who disagree with Vatican teaching on contraception - whether they voice that disagreement in words, with their feet, or through the quiet example of their private lives - of how such &quot;irrelevant&quot; teachings play out in the lives of their poorer sisters, would make the issue of Vatican authority relevant again. It certainly is for those who don&#39;t have the freedom, &quot;true&quot; or otherwise, to disregard an authority that directs the healthcare they can receive. </p>      ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Missing: The &quot;Right&quot; Babies</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/19/missing-the-right-babies" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/19/missing-the-right-babies</id>
    <published>2008-02-18T08:59:51-05:00</published>
    <updated>2008-02-19T09:04:07-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kathryn Joyce</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>Europe is failing to produce enough babies--the "right" babies--to replace its old and dying. It's "the baby bust," "the birth dearth" : modern euphemisms for old-fashioned race panic as low fertility among white "Western" couples coincides with an increasingly visible immigrant population across Europe.</p>      ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>     Steve Mosher is telling me about wolves returning to the streets of European towns. Not as part of some Vermont-model wildlife-recovery scenario but as emblems of a harsh comeuppance mankind is due--they&#39;re stalking out of the forests like an ancient judgment, coming to claim mankind&#39;s ceded land. We&#39;re sitting in a sunny Main Street cafe in Front Royal, Virginia--a beautifying ex-industrial town in the Shenandoah Valley that, as the far edge of DC&#39;s suburban sprawl, is lately home to a surprising number of conservative Christian ministries. Mosher, president of the Catholic anticontraception lobbyist group <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/118"><acronym title="Population Research Institute: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Population Research Institute">Population Research Institute</acronym></a> (PRI), describes his grim vision of Europe&#39;s future: fields will lie fallow and economies will wither. A great depression will sink over the continent as it undergoes &quot;a decline that Europe hasn&#39;t experienced since the Black Death.&quot; The comeuppance has a name, one being fervently hawked among a group of Christian-right &quot;profamily&quot; activists hoping to spark a movement in secular Europe. It&#39;s called the &quot;demographic winter,&quot; a more austere brand of apocalypse than doomsayers normally trade in, evoking not a nuclear inferno but a quiet and cold blanket of snow in which, they charge, &quot;Western Civilization&quot; is laying itself down to die.</p>
<p>How so? Europe is failing to produce enough babies--the right babies--to replace its old and dying. It&#39;s &quot;the baby bust,&quot; &quot;the birth dearth,&quot; &quot;the graying of the continent&quot;: modern euphemisms for old-fashioned race panic as low fertility among white &quot;Western&quot; couples coincides with an increasingly visible immigrant population across Europe. The real root of racial tensions in the Netherlands and France, America&#39;s culture warriors tell anxious Europeans, isn&#39;t ineffective methods of assimilating new citizens but, rather, decades of &quot;antifamily&quot; permissiveness--contraception, abortion, divorce, population control, women&#39;s liberation and careers, &quot;selfish&quot; secularism and gay rights--enabling &quot;decadent&quot; white couples to neglect their reproductive duties. Defying the biblical command to &quot;be fruitful and multiply,&quot; Europeans have failed to produce the magic number of 2.1 children per couple, the estimated &quot;replacement-level fertility&quot; for developed nations (and a figure repeated so frequently it becomes a near incantation). The white Christian West, in this telling, is in danger of forfeiting itself through sheer lack of numbers to an onslaught of Muslim immigrants and their purportedly numerous offspring. In other words, Mosher and his colleagues aren&#39;t really concerned about wolves.  </p>
<p>  Another profamily soldier banging the drum about demographic winter, Christine de Vollmer, head of the US-funded Latin American Alliance for the Family, says that thanks to &quot;obstinate antifamily policies, the end of European civilization can be calculated in years.&quot; Such predictions are winning the ear of top US conservatives, with Mitt Romney taking time during his campaign exit speech on February 7 to warn that &quot;Europe is facing a demographic disaster&quot; due to its modernized, secular culture, particularly its &quot;weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for human life and eroded morality.&quot; With this, the American Christian right has hit on a potent formula: grafting falling Western birthrates onto old morality arguments to craft a tidy cause-and-effect model that its members hope will provide their ideology an entry into European politics.  </p>
<p>    The imminent demise of Europe is a popular prediction these days, with books such as Catholic scholar George Weigel&#39;s <em>The Cube and the Cathedral</em>, Melanie Phillips&#39;s <em>Londonistan</em>, Bruce Bawer&#39;s <em>While Europe Slept</em> and Pat Buchanan&#39;s <em>Death of the West </em>all appearing since 2001. The 2006 film <em>Children of Men</em> sketched a sterile, dystopian world thrown into chaos for lack of babies (though with less blatant antiabortion implications than the Christian allegorical P.D. James novel on which it was based). The media increasingly sound the alarm as Eastern European countries register birthrates halved since the last generation. And on February 11, the Family First Foundation, a profamily group in the same movement circles as Mosher and de Vollmer, released a documentary dedicated to the threat: <em>Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family</em>.  </p>
<p>  What was a conservative drumbeat about Europe&#39;s death has become mainstream media shorthand, complementing ominous news items about Muslim riots in France; Muslim boycotts in London; Muslim &quot;veil&quot; debates in Denmark; and empty European churches transformed into mosques, with calls to prayer replacing church bells. Evangelical luminary Chuck Colson, head of the vast Prison Fellowship ministry and a close ally of George W. Bush, espoused a conspiracy theory in which he construed an Islamic Council of Europe handbook for Muslims trying to keep the faith abroad as a &quot;soft terrorism&quot; plot for takeover. The late Oriana Fallaci lambasted Europe&#39;s transformation into a Muslim colony, &quot;Eurabia.&quot; And in a recent political match in Switzerland, a campaign poster depicted a flock of white sheep kicking a black sheep out of their pasture, &quot;For Greater Security.&quot; The refrain is that the good-faith multicultural tolerance approach of the Netherlands has been tried and has failed, which is arguably a few polite steps from Mosher&#39;s summary of the problem: that Muslim immigrants are simply &quot;too many and too culturally different from their new countries&#39; populations to assimilate quickly.... They are contributing to the cultural suicide of these nations as they commit demographic suicide.&quot; Or, as he declared while rallying a gathering of profamily activists last spring in Poland, &quot;I want to see more Poles!&quot;  </p>
<p>  Or more Russians, or more Italians, as the case may be. The fever for more &quot;European&quot; babies is widespread. The last two popes have involved themselves in the debate, with John Paul II pronouncing a &quot;crisis of births&quot; in 2002 in an anomalous papal address to Italy&#39;s Parliament and Benedict XVI remarking on the &quot;tragedy&quot; of childless European couples and beatifying an Italian peasant woman for raising twelve children. </p>
<p>  At the national level, in 2004 Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi offered a &quot;baby bonus&quot; of about $1,000 to parents who had a second child, and Russia, which has a history of pronatalist policies, including its 1980s-era &quot;motherhood medals,&quot; sweetened the offer to its citizens with several birth initiatives for hesitant couples, including an $8,900 award to families who produce a second child and a stipend of 40 percent of salary to women who leave work to become stay-at-home moms. One Russian province made novelty news worldwide with its Day of <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/158"><acronym title="Conception: Conception is &amp;quot;often used synonymously      with fertilization but, medically, is equated with implantation.&amp;quot;  The American       College of Obstetricians and      Gynecologists (ACOG) considers the term &amp;quot;conception&amp;quot; to mean implantation.      (Guttmacher      Institute)    ">Conception</acronym></a> on September 12, when residents of Ulyanovsk got time off work to &quot;conceive a patriot&quot; for the country. Prizes for successful delivery nine months later include refrigerators and cars. The theme is present enough in the popular consciousness that a Swedish underwear company cashed in on the anxiety with a provocative ad campaign featuring a cast of Nordic men wearing EU-type lapel pins, commanding Swedes to Fuck for the Future and Drop Your Pants or Drop Dead. </p>
<p>     The nativist motivations for such campaigns move beyond the subliminal at times. Elizabeth Krause, an anthropologist and author of <em>A Crisis of Births: Population Politics and Family-Making in Italy</em>, tracked that country&#39;s population efforts over the past decade and found politicians demanding more babies &quot;to keep away the armadas of immigrants from the southern shores of the Mediterranean&quot; and priests calling for a &quot;Christian dike against the Muslim invasion of Italy.&quot; The racial preferences behind Berlusconi&#39;s &quot;baby bonus&quot; came into embarrassing relief when immigrant parents were accidentally sent checks for their offspring and then asked to return the money: the Italian government hadn&#39;t meant to promote <em>those</em> births.   </p>
<p>  The American Christian right, increasingly seeking influence abroad, has recognized that this anxiety over shifting national identities creates fertile terrain for spreading its ideology of traditional sexual morality as a quick fix for a postmodern age. </p>
<p>  In the documentary <em>Demographic Winter</em>, the imagery of a frosty End of Days, accompanied by a foreboding, skeletal piano score, is played for full effect over somber interviews with conservative scholars, activists and European politicians. &quot;One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding,&quot; the film promises. &quot;We are headed toward a demographic winter, which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long-lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.&quot;</p>
<p>    As Allan Carlson, president of the Illinois profamily think tank the Howard Center, discusses the &quot;demographic winter of Western societies,&quot; a flurry of snow covers the United States, then Europe and finally the rest of the world. Catholic activist de Vollmer talks about the intergenerational collapse <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">family planning</acronym></a> will bring: an echo of her charge that contraception, by splitting sexuality from procreation and rejecting potential offspring, leads to generations of damaged, alienated children &quot;like Bucharest orphans,&quot; who will later refuse care to their own aged parents. As she describes a dysfunctional global family where the elderly are too many to care for and the young too few to run the trains, the camera cuts to a lonely street shot of pastel European row houses framing a desolate walkway, and a confused grandfather left untended and alone. As a Latvian legislator describes the devastating impact of demographic winter on countries with already small populations, a child playing on a swing set disappears and snowflakes start to fly.   </p>
<p>  Another commentator, Phillip Longman, is a deliberately counterintuitive face for demographic winter: a policy writer for the center-left Democratic Leadership Council and author of <em>The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What To Do About It</em>. Longman consistently aligns himself with the far right on population issues, which warns that Europe is becoming a continent of the elderly, with death rates exceeding birthrates on the scale of nuclear war. Words for extended family members, he warns--uncle, aunt, even sibling--will disappear as shrinking families render them obsolete. In the rosiest endgame he allows, Longman predicts that the fertile faithful will inherit the earth and that &quot;those who remain will be committed to God.&quot; That is, committed to neo-orthodox profamily doctrines condemning contraception as an &quot;<a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/156"><acronym title="Abortifacient: Abortifacients terminate pregnancy. PPFA defines an abortifacient as &amp;quot;a drug, herb, or device that can cause an abortion.&amp;quot;      ">abortifacient</acronym></a>&quot; and a rejection of God&#39;s greatest blessing, children: a theology gaining ground among all branches of Christianity. It&#39;s a point Carlson makes frequently, supplementing his &quot;airtight&quot; social science case for traditional values with praise for religious orthodoxy as the &quot;yeast&quot; that will make the family movement rise: compelling people to sacrifice their individual goals to raise large families. In this light, Carlson says, &quot;Secularism is a societal death wish.&quot; Or, as Longman puts it, delivering a mournful cosmic punch line to gratified Christian-right audiences, &quot;Your children won&#39;t grow up to be secular humanists.&quot; </p>
<p>  As for those secular humanists--a &quot;sterile&quot; elite Longman sees as too self-absorbed to reproduce--he delivers an ominous ultimatum. Though it&#39;s tough for a generation educated to fear the population bomb and value women&#39;s rights, gay rights and environmentalism to accept these trends, unless they temper their 1970s notions of individual fulfillment, they&#39;ll be among the &quot;certain kinds of human beings&quot; who &quot;are on their way to extinction.&quot; Just what the putatively liberal Longman intends by these threats seems to depend on the rationale behind his allegiance to the profamily/demographic winter coalition. While ostensibly he&#39;s warning liberals to get in line with &quot;traditional&quot; family morality <em>or else</em>, his presence at the helm of the movement seems targeted toward the conservative choir, reminding them that they have two foes in this battle, two enemies within: a tangible human population expanding within their borders and a sexually liberal frame of mind endemic to modern society.  </p>
<p>  As Rick Stout and Barry McLerran, producers of <em>Demographic Winter</em>, argue, &quot;Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found. These solutions will necessarily result in policy changes, changes that will support and promote the natural, intact family.&quot; The rhetoric of the &quot;natural family&quot; is significant. Stout, a Brigham Young University graduate, and McLerran, executive director of the Family First Foundation, a grant-making organization based in the aptly named Salt Lake City suburb of Bountiful, are among the hundreds of Mormon profamily activists who have made common cause with conservative Catholic and evangelical ideologues. In fact, it was the collaboration of Mormon and evangelical activists that birthed one of the guiding documents of the movement, <em>The Natural Family Manifesto</em>--a conservative call to arms co-written by Paul Mero, head of the Mormon think tank the Sutherland Institute, and Allan Carlson, the grandfatherly evangelical academic at the forefront of the cause.  </p>
<p>  Carlson is a compelling conservative historian who uses secular arguments to craft a social science rationale for the necessity of large patriarchal families, or the &quot;natural family,&quot; as he calls it in his manifesto--a correction of Marx that aims to turn America and the Western world away from the perils of liberal modernity and back to the &quot;natural family&quot; model, where fathers lead and women honor their highest domestic calling by becoming &quot;prolific mothers.&quot; In this scheme, families are the fundamental unit that society and government should be concerned with promoting, and individual rights are valued insofar as they correspond with pronatalist aims. Thus Carlson and Mero qualify their &quot;wholehearted&quot; support of women&#39;s rights: &quot;Above all, we believe in rights that recognize women&#39;s unique gifts of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.&quot; </p>
<p>  The interdenominational alliance of Mormon, Catholic and evangelical &quot;profamily&quot; advocates, as well as the token link between this pan-Christian front and a handful of Orthodox Jewish and Muslim representatives, is the hallmark of Carlson&#39;s work, whether with the Howard Center, the Family First Foundation--of which he is also a director--or as secretary and co-founder of the World Congress of Families (WCF), an international, interfaith profamily conference. Carlson&#39;s influence is largely behind-the-scenes, writing policy for ultra-right Senator Sam Brownback and Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska and, increasingly, spreading his &quot;natural family&quot; ideal through theories of a looming population crisis facing the West. </p>
<p>     The WCF is just one channel for this goal: a locus for heavyweight US conservative actors such as the Heritage Foundation, the <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/114"><acronym title="Family Research Council: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Family Research Council">Family Research Council</acronym></a>, <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/113"><acronym title="Concerned Women for America: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Concerned Women for America">Concerned Women for America</acronym></a> and James Dobson&#39;s <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/115"><acronym title="Focus on the Family: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Focus on the Family">Focus on the Family</acronym></a>--a Who&#39;s Who of the American Christian right--to network with representatives from the Vatican, conservative Christians from developing nations and a smattering of Muslim groups seeking allies to fight gay and women&#39;s rights at the United Nations. The result is the spread of US culture-war tactics across the globe, from the Czech Republic to Qatar--where right-wing Mormon activist and WCF co-founder Richard Wilkins has found enough common cause with Muslim fundamentalists to build the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development.    </p>
<p>  Arguably, the greatest impact profamily efforts such as the WCF have is in helping conservative European leaders hone a common message about the &quot;natural family&quot; as a necessary counter to demographic anxieties. </p>
<p>  The fourth conference of the WCF, in Warsaw last May, provided much of the commentary for the <em>Demographic Winter</em> film. And little wonder: besides Carlson, Family First Foundation&#39;s board of directors is composed entirely of WCF leaders and speakers, all of whom gathered in Warsaw&#39;s grand Palace of Culture and Science, the old Polish Communist Party headquarters, with more than 3,000 other religious conservatives, to hear predictions about Europe as a sinking ship, a Titanic nearly lost to the repercussions of the sexual revolution. But for the first time in a long time, the &quot;natural family&quot; has a white knight in Europe: brave Poland, the anti-Sweden. Following Pope John Paul II&#39;s philosophy that particular countries can change the course of Europe, Poland has been heralded in US profamily literature as the likely salvation of the continent: a heavily Catholic bastion of conservatism amid the gay-friendly EU. Under the leadership of the Kaczynski brothers--extremist twins in office as president and prime minister--the country has shifted far to the right, embracing a social conservatism that aggressively targets gays, Jews, women&#39;s rights and foreigners, and that in 2006 went so far as to propose that Jesus be named honorary king of Poland.  </p>
<p>    To Carlson, this proves Poland is &quot;an island of profamily values&quot; amid the tides of &quot;Christo-phobic&quot; &quot;population-control types&quot; who dominate the rest of the continent. Poland, he says, could provide an important counterbalance to European modernity and become a launching point for &quot;a profamily resistance,&quot; and thereby &quot;save Europe again&quot;: a not-so-coded reference to the Battle of Vienna in 1683, where Polish King John III Sobieski led a &quot;Holy League&quot; army of Christian soldiers against the Ottoman Empire, culminating in a decisive victory for Christendom over the invading Muslim troops. The profamily movement&#39;s bald reference to this ancient holy war informs new conservative foot soldiers who see today&#39;s immigration conflicts as &quot;a new phase of a very old war.&quot; And so the WCF chose Poland as the site of last spring&#39;s massing of the troops, drawing thousands of leaders from across the spectrum of religious-right activism: from US evangelical and Catholic nonprofits to Eastern European Catholic and orthodox antiabortion and anti-gay rights groups, to bureaucrats from European, EU and US governments, taking policy notes to bring back home.  </p>
<p>  The architects of the WCF have persuaded traditionally isolationist American conservatives to care about the fate of secular, impious Europe with two main arguments: one, that Europe is a bulwark against a Muslim &quot;invasion&quot; of America--&quot;If Europe is lost to demographic winter and radical secularism, much of the world will go with it,&quot; Carlson warns--and two, that global trends, such as the normalization of gay and women&#39;s rights, can impact life at home.  </p>
<p>  If Europe has a &quot;sickness of the soul,&quot; the WCF claims to have &quot;the cure.&quot; Specifically, that cure is a version of the practice of American women living Allan Carlson&#39;s &quot;natural family&quot; vision of having &quot;full quivers&quot; of children. These are families of eight, ten, twelve or more children. It is a vision packaged for popular culture: encouraging families to become &quot;Great Families,&quot; with three to four children each, enough of an increase to stave off the winter [see Joyce, &quot;Arrows for the War,&quot; November 27, 2006]. </p>
<p>  &quot;The new view is that in order to create and defend a profamily culture, we also have to have a friendly international environment,&quot; says Carlson. &quot;So you see something fundamentally new: the social conservative movement going global.&quot; </p>
<p>  Austin Ruse, head of the ultraconservative Catholic UN lobbyist group <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/109"><acronym title="C-FAM: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for C-FAM">C-Fam</acronym></a> and organizer of Washington&#39;s National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, says the WCF is just one expression of an ever-growing conservative coalition. Its hatred of liberalism, feminism and the sexual revolution outweighs theological differences, and it is branching out worldwide. C-Fam is opening offices in Brussels to lobby the EU directly.  </p>
<p>  Ruse&#39;s goals for EU activism are likely in line with his accomplishments at the UN, where he gained notoriety for his incendiary rhetoric (his lobby is a &quot;plague of locusts&quot; descending on women&#39;s rights) and political theater, which, even with few allies, effectively stalled progress on a number of women&#39;s movement initiatives. Christian-right watchers agree that demographic winter appeals to struggling new EU countries in devout Eastern Europe could have &quot;serious&quot; results. Ruse himself, not given to understatement, imagines the global Christian profamily alliance is &quot;unlike anything we&#39;ve seen since the Reformation.&quot; A bloc like this, he boasts, is capable of mayhem: &quot;Picture the documentaries about Africa: the hyenas going after the wildebeest. You&#39;re just surrounded. We are everywhere, doing everything.&quot; </p>
<p>     Jennifer Butler, author of <em>Born Again: The Christian Right Globalized</em> and a witness to the havoc that Ruse brought to the UN during the 1990s, has tracked the rise of the international Christian right with apprehension. &quot;I felt that nobody else knew what they were up to. You can&#39;t underestimate what they can do.&quot;   </p>
<p>  What they are up to now is on full display for interested observers: a battle on many fronts against what they call &quot;the autonomy revolution&quot; of the 1960s--a worldview shift far broader than a mere sexual revolution. The minutiae of the &quot;natural family&quot; revival they intend is being addressed by hundreds of conservative activists. Paige Patterson, an architect of the conservative takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention, has lamented the high percentage of female university students as an impediment to stay-at-home motherhood. In August he fought the trend by instituting a homemaking curriculum for female students attending his Texas seminary. Carol Soelberg, president of the Mormon group United Families International and mother of thirteen, advocates women realizing their true mission in the home. Paul Mero encourages early marriage by declaring bachelors over 30 &quot;a menace to society.&quot; And Carlson and Mosher continually seek ways to turn tax law into a vehicle for rewarding fertility and interpreting population stability laws as pronatalist measures.  </p>
<p>  How far they can go with it depends in part on how convincing their population threats--and solutions--seem to countries grappling with cultural growing pains, as well as how deftly the proponents of demographic winter navigate their own abundant internal contradictions. </p>
<p>    Despite the lip service the profamily movement gives to uniting all the &quot;children of Abraham&quot; against common enemies, the sense of a more tangible foe--Muslim immigration--bleeds through their cooperative rhetoric. Farooq Hassan, a Harvard law professor and one of the few Muslim representatives in this profamily movement, chastised his colleagues for their transparent appeals to nationalism: &quot;The rest of the world doesn&#39;t have the same problems as Europe. The Western world wants more people in Europe, but you don&#39;t care if there are more families in the Third World. You want less families there.&quot;  </p>
<p>  As if to demonstrate Hassan&#39;s point, Mosher&#39;s PRI claims to fight population control on behalf of women in developing nations--lumping instances of real abuse, such as the history of coerced sterilizations performed on developing world women, together with all efforts to expand family planning options--but reveals the limits of his professed concern for women&#39;s rights when he tells me that Israel relinquished Gaza because, as &quot;Yasir Arafat said, the best weapon of the Palestinians is &#39;the womb of the Arab woman&#39;&quot;: an example of fertility that Mosher finds &quot;very sobering if you&#39;re concerned about the future of Israel.&quot;  </p>
<p>  In the context of the competing narratives conservatives hope to bend to their purposes, Mosher&#39;s slightly off-message slip is understandable. Another instance of this took place when a presenter at the Congress in Warsaw, an American OB/GYN lecturing against contraception, told the largely Polish audience that birth control was a continuation of an old evil, child sacrifice--a fraught evocation in post-Holocaust Poland, where anti-Semitic slurs against the nearly destroyed Jewish population, including the old blood libel charging Jews with ritual child murder, are far from forgotten. The inference isn&#39;t much of a stretch in a country where the government blames shadowy &quot;webs of influence&quot; for Poland&#39;s lagging economy; where sociologists describe a widespread conceptualized anti-Semitism that casts gays, feminists and secularists as symbolic &quot;Jews&quot; in a country with few actual Jews left; and where Jews are blamed for Communism and abortion, both of which are widely reviled. (Such associations aren&#39;t limited to Poland&#39;s profamily movement: Fr. Paul Marx, the founder of both Mosher&#39;s PRI and <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/116"><acronym title="Human Life International: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Human Life International">Human Life International</acronym></a>, the parent group of Austin Ruse&#39;s C-Fam, likewise charged that Jews control the abortion &quot;industry.&quot;)  </p>
<p>  These relics of demagogy--blurring the lines between the various enemies of Polish nationalism, whether Jewish, secular or Muslim--have helped foster a climate in which Poland widely accepts demographic winter, and all it entails, as truth. Members of the right-wing ideological youth brigade, the All Polish Youth, refine their politics by reading Pat Buchanan&#39;s <em>The Death of the West</em>, in which he describes a generalized &quot;Western&quot; diaspora, including Australia, Canada, the United States and Russia--as a &quot;vanishing race.&quot; Meanwhile, to reverse the winter, Poland is enshrining Catholic doctrine into law: relegating contraception and sex ed to private clinics, and crafting laws to ban discussions on homosexuality in public schools and to prosecute abortion as murder. </p>
<p>  Jon O&#39;Brien, president of the liberal reproductive-rights group Catholics for a Free Choice, tells me that Poland is &quot;a classic example of what you can expect if the World Congress of Families&#39; fantasy came true.&quot;  </p>
<p>  This is where O&#39;Brien, generally skeptical of the profamily movement&#39;s international appeal, sees a dangerous opportunity for its extremist patriarchal ideas to bloom: in Eastern European countries new to democracy and more accustomed to totalitarian traditions and an ultranationalism born of fear, poverty and porous borders. &quot;When you have someone powerful like Putin talking to people in these circumstances about the necessity of Russian women giving birth, then you have to worry about it--how that could be turned into policy.&quot; </p>
<p>     To Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women&#39;s Health Coalition, the profamily movement&#39;s new demographic focus is a logical extreme. &quot;To me, it was obvious that they&#39;d reach this point. It just seems early,&quot; she says. The worrying thing is that whether countries push pro- or antinatalist policies, &quot;the first thing down the drain is a woman&#39;s ability to control her body.&quot;   </p>
<p>  And this, of course, is the (largely unacknowledged) rub with the profamily movement&#39;s focus on procreation: it requires a world of women to dedicate their lives and wombs to demographic battle. &quot;The shadow of Fascism still hovers over demographic science,&quot; Krause tells me, and lends a chilling factor to &quot;moralizing&quot; language that pathologizes the childless as sick or, in Italy, as anorexics refusing to eat. Indeed, when Pope John Paul II raised his demographic concerns to the Italian Parliament, it was unprecedented since Fascist years, evoking a painful social memory of Mussolini&#39;s fertility project, which attacked bachelors, rewarded mothers of many children, criminalized abortion and banned contraception. </p>
<p>  Of course, such programs weren&#39;t limited to Italian Fascism. A similar trajectory occurred in wartime Germany, writes historian Claudia Koonz, author of <em>Mothers in the Fatherland</em>. Other nations in Depression-era Europe grew concerned about falling birthrates, but under Fascism&#39;s extreme gender divisions and the escalating sense of crisis pervading the country, early eugenic motherhood schools and rewards for fertile women morphed by war&#39;s end into the brutalizing demographic demands of the Lebensborn breeding program. Designed to mass-produce more Aryan soldiers and factory hands as part of the &quot;motherhood crusade,&quot; Lebensborn castigated &quot;selfish&quot; women who weren&#39;t doing their part to guarantee the increase and preservation of the race.  </p>
<p>    The implication of current pronatalist policies, that women are the source of population problems, may be less extreme, argues Krause, but it is still deeply troublesome. &quot;To state that women&#39;s interests are at odds with those of babies is to stake out a moral ground on which women&#39;s primary role is as a biological reproducer for the nation--much as it was during the Fascist years.&quot; Furthermore, Krause says, calling for Italian women to begin having three or four children &quot;erases the trauma of peasant women who&#39;ve historically borne large families in crushing poverty&quot; and labels women&#39;s decisions to limit their families a disease in need of a cure.   </p>
<p>  These things are quickly forgotten in the panic for more white babies.  </p>
<p>  As for cultural identity, Krause delivers a salient reminder that some multicultural liberal truisms hold and that what unifies a population is often a deliberate decision to welcome and integrate new elements into society rather than clinging to ever-shifting notions of &quot;true&quot; European heritage and race. To wit, the very insults hurled at today&#39;s Muslim immigrants in Italy are themselves repurposed echoes of old slurs that Northern Italians made against their Southern countrymen up to a short decade ago, deriding them as too dark and too foreign to qualify as &quot;authentically&quot; Italian. The population that is being banded together against a new outsider was, until very recently, fractured within itself, still struggling after more than 150 years to forge a common identity out of the many regional groups that make up the state. &quot;One of the famous quotes from [newly unified] Italy in the 1860s,&quot; Krause recalls, &quot;was, &#39;Now that we&#39;ve made Italy, we need to make Italians.&#39; Making Italians, Russians, Americans is a constant project.&quot; </p>
<p>  But such slow-slogging and fragile projects of community-building are jeopardized by the hasty purity standards implied by the Great Family &quot;cure&quot; for demographic winter, in which belonging is defined by ethnicity alone and demographic winter itself begins to seem just a prelude: for a new cold war, a &quot;clash of civilizations&quot; to be fought through women&#39;s bodies, with the maternity ward as battleground.</p>
<blockquote><p>This article was first published by <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/joyce" rel="nofollow">The Nation</a>. </p>
</p></blockquote>      ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Quiverfull: More Children For God&#039;s Army</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/11/30/quiverfull-more-children-for-gods-army" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/11/30/quiverfull-more-children-for-gods-army</id>
    <published>2006-11-30T08:00:00-05:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-01T14:18:36-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Kathryn Joyce</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[  <blockquote>
<p>Kathryn Joyce is working on a book about conservative Christian women&#39;s movements, to be published by Beacon Press. </p>
</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Between 1985 and 1990, three books were published by small, independent Christian presses that would come to have a profound impact on Christian Right thinking on <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122" rel="nofollow">family planning</a>, feminism and birth control. Charles Provan&#39;s <em>The Bible and Birth Control</em>, Mary Pride&#39;s <em>The Way Home: Away from Feminism and Back to Reality</em>, and Rick and Jan Hess&#39;s <em>A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ</em>. Together, these three books laid a comprehensive framework for the pro-natalist, anti-birth control movement today known as Quiverfull, wherein believers eschew all forms of birth control, natural and hormonal, and argue that Christian families should leave the number of children they have entirely in the hands of God.</p>
<p>In the Nov. 27th issue of <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">The Nation</a>, I profiled a group of Quiverfull believers who had broods of 8, 11, 13 and 14 children, and who spoke of their decision to have such large families as a form of spiritual warfare. That much is reflected in their name, taken from Psalm 127: &quot;Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one&#39;s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.&quot; Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement, but as an army they&#39;re building for God.</p>      ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[  <blockquote>
<p>Kathryn Joyce is working on a book about conservative Christian women&#39;s movements, to be published by Beacon Press. </p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Between 1985 and 1990, three books were published by small, independent Christian presses that would come to have a profound impact on Christian Right thinking on <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">family planning</acronym></a>, feminism and birth control. Charles Provan&#39;s <em>The Bible and Birth Control</em>, Mary Pride&#39;s <em>The Way Home: Away from Feminism and Back to Reality</em>, and Rick and Jan Hess&#39;s <em>A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ</em>. Together, these three books laid a comprehensive framework for the pro-natalist, anti-birth control movement today known as Quiverfull, wherein believers eschew all forms of birth control, natural and hormonal, and argue that Christian families should leave the number of children they have entirely in the hands of God.</p>
<p>In the Nov. 27th issue of <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce" rel="nofollow">The Nation</a>, I profiled a group of Quiverfull believers who had broods of 8, 11, 13 and 14 children, and who spoke of their decision to have such large families as a form of spiritual warfare. That much is reflected in their name, taken from Psalm 127: &quot;Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one&#39;s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.&quot; Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement, but as an army they&#39;re building for God. </p>
<p>Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They homeschool their families, attend fundamentalist churches, and follow biblical guidelines of male headship - &quot;father knows best&quot; - and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull probably began as a self-conscious movement with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess&#39;s 1989 book, <em>A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ</em>, in which they argue that God, as the &quot;Great Physician&quot; and sole &quot;Birth Controller,&quot; is in charge of opening and closing the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women&#39;s attempts to control their own bodies - the Lord&#39;s temple - are a seizure of divine power.</p>
<p>Its word-of-mouth growth can be traced back to conservative Protestant critiques of contraception, and the growing belief among evangelicals that birth control pills are an &quot;<a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/156"><acronym title="Abortifacient: Abortifacients terminate pregnancy. PPFA defines an abortifacient as &amp;quot;a drug, herb, or device that can cause an abortion.&amp;quot;      ">abortifacient</acronym></a>&quot; (that hormonal contraception such as the pill can cause the &quot;chemical abortion&quot; of accidentally fertilized eggs). This is one of the strongest ties between Quiverfull conviction and the larger Christian Right, connecting a radically-expanded &quot;pro-life&quot; agenda that has broadened its political interests from abortion, to birth control and sexual abstinence, to international pro-natalist and pro-population movements. (Such an expanded agenda was on full display this fall at the Contraception is Not the Answer conference in Illinois, deftly covered <a href="/blog/tag/cinta" rel="nofollow">in these pages</a> by Tyler LePard.)</p>
<p>Pride&#39;s book - a grassroots hit among the homeschooling movement - denounced birth control as the hallmark of selfish feminists and paved the way for women&#39;s careers and abortion. &quot;Family planning is the mother of abortion. A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular,&quot; Pride argued, calling for Christians to fight abortion by demonstrating that children were &quot;unqualified blessings&quot; by having as many as God gave them.</p>
<p>A number of families in the past twenty years have followed Pride&#39;s and the Hesses&#39; charge. Though there are no exact figures for the size of the movement, the number of families that identify as Quiverfull is likely in the low tens of thousands. In its most benign self-descriptions, Quiverfull is about faith, pure and simple: faith that God won&#39;t give a woman more children than she can handle, and faith that by opening themselves up receive multiple &quot;blessings&quot; - in the form of children - they will bring God&#39;s favor upon them in other areas of life as well. God &quot;deals with the hearts&quot; about birth control, and if they submit, they are cared for.</p>
<p>But a more disturbing rationale for Quiverfull can also be found in its founding texts. After arguing Scripture, the Hesses point to a number of more worldly effects that a Christian embrace of Quiverfull could bring. &quot;When at the height of the Reagan Revolution,&quot; they write, &quot;the conservative faction in Washington was enforced [sic] with squads of new conservative congressmen, legislators often found themselves handcuffed by lack of like-minded staff. There simply weren&#39;t enough conservatives trained to serve in Washington in the lower and middle capacities.&quot; But if just eight million American Christians began supplying more &quot;arrows for the war&quot; by having six children or more, they propose that the Christian Right ranks could rise to 550 million within a century.</p>
<p>The language of spiritual warfare, demographic victory in the culture war through population shifts drastic enough to influence the law, and the inversion of old patriarchal traditions to seem like rebellion against modern society, may seem dramatic, but these are key parts of the religious and pro-family agenda to fight birth control that has drawn the attention of policy makers on the right and in the middle, and deserves the attention of anyone concerned with reproductive freedom. A fuller portrait of the movement and its members is <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce" rel="nofollow">available here</a>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>      ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
