Debra Haffner's blog

Abortion "Neutrality" in Health Care Reform: Unfair and Unjust

2009-08-18T08:00:00-04:00

This post first appeared on the Sexuality and Religion blog.

I have found the reports of the town halls about health care reform appalling. I simply do not understand how so many people believe the lies and distortions -- but even more, I don't understand how people don't believe that everyone deserves health care.

And that health care should cover all medical services.

Once again, abortion is taking center stage as a key area of public debate. I was called yesterday by a DC colleague and told that the faith community was getting behind "abortion neutrality" in health care reform.

What would that mean? It would mean the public option would not include abortion services and that private options need not include reproductive health care. Translation: poor and low income women would have no coverage for abortion services. Other women, who opt for the public option because they work for a small business, are self employed, or unemployed, would have no coverage.

This doesn't seem like "neutrality" to me. It sounds like selling out women again for political expediency.

That's why I added my name to this letter signed by diverse religious leaders, raising our voices to the inclusion of reproductive health care services in health care reform. I've reprinted it below.

I desperately believe we need health care for everyone. But, I implore the White House and the Democrats in Congress not to abandon their commitments to choice to do it.

Letter from National Religious Leaders to Members of Congress Urging Access to Abortion in Health Care Reform August 13, 2009

Dear Members of Congress,

As religious leaders, we support public policies that are just and compassionate and prioritize the needs of those who are poor and marginalized in our society. Therefore we are opposed to attempts - many made in the name of religion and morality - to exclude abortion services from health care reform.

While our reasons for supporting the inclusion of abortion services in health care are diverse, they are grounded in the teachings of our faith traditions and our commitment to social justice. The majority of faith groups in America have affirmed that abortion is a decision of conscience that should be safeguarded by government. Further, these faith traditions affirm that health care services, including abortion, must be available to all, regardless of income.

If coverage for abortion is eliminated from health care reform, the poor and communities of color will bear the consequences. Already, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth as her higher income counterpart. Lack of access to abortion services perpetuates inequality and compromises the future of women, their families and their communities. In this religiously pluralistic nation, our health care system should be inclusive and respectful of diverse religious beliefs and decisions regarding childbearing. One in three American women has an abortion by age 45, making it one of the most common medical procedures in the nation. Ignoring this truth belies the rhetoric of comprehensive, accessible health care.

A health care system that serves all persons with dignity and equality will include comprehensive reproductive health services. We call on Congress to preserve the current standard of reproductive health care and ensure that millions of uninsured and underinsured women will have access to these services. Thank you for your consideration.

Ground We've Already Covered

2009-06-17T09:00:00-04:00

In his speech at Notre Dame, President Obama called for all sides in the abortion debate to tone down the rhetoric, recognize that we will never fully reconcile our views, and agree to work together where we have common aims. Less than two weeks later, Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in his church. In the escalation of words that followed and in the threats of violence by the most extreme anti-abortion advocates that appeared throughout the blogosphere, the President's counsel could seem inadequate and naïve.

But, I hope that Dr. Tiller's murder is not an end to calls for reaching across the divide on abortion to forge ahead toward goals that are surely common ground: first and foremost, to reduce the need for abortion by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy. Surely we can also agree that such efforts must uphold the moral agency of women in making the decisions that are right for their individual circumstances, including providing financial and emotional support for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term and a loving community for them and their child. As the Religious Institute's Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision states, "poverty, social inequities, sexism, racism, and unsupportive relationships" too often "render a woman virtually powerless to choose freely."

More than a decade ago, I was part of an intense two-day common ground initiative at the Wye River sponsored by the Aspen Institute. Religious leaders across the spectrum participated, and we agreed on where common ground could be sought. I encourage you to read the paper that came out of that dialog at the website of the Religious Institute; I reread it just a few minutes ago, and believe that it is as applicable today as when it was written. At that common ground meeting, diverse religious leaders with diametrically opposed views on abortion were able to agree that there were seven opportunities where concerns could be addressed together:

Promoting sexual responsibility
Fostering equality and respect for women
Strengthening parent-child communication about sexuality
Working to reduce teenage pregnancies
Improving prenatal and maternal care
Supporting the choice of adoption
Working together to reduce the conditions that lead to unplanned pregnancies.

It is interesting to note that a decade ago we knew that the focus must be on reducing unintended pregnancies not abortion reduction. The numbers of abortions could be reduced by making abortions harder to get through restrictions, threats to providers, and a lack of training. Surely we serve common ground better by agreeing in other words from the Open Letter: "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly." What we must focus on are the means to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place -- specifically, comprehensive sexuality education that helps young people delay premature sexual behaviors and includes information about contraception and condoms, universal access to contraceptive services, including emergency contraception, and education and employment opportunities for young women.

This is the real moral challenge we face. I've worked with thousands of women facing unintended pregnancies. They aren't looking for "abortion on demand"; with only a handful of exceptions, these women sat with me (often with their partners or parents beside them), and they wept as they tried to decide what was best to do. Often they did have financial concerns -- not so much about how they would pay for prenatal care or infant care, but about how they could afford to raise a child (or in many cases, another child) to adulthood. Too often, they did not have partners who they wanted to spend their lives with or who could support them. As one of my colleagues has said, such women have "too much responsibility already and too few resources, both personal and economic."

So here is my suggestion: Let's stop talking about reducing abortions as a goal in itself. Let's keep talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position; it is a faithful and moral one as well.

Surely this is common ground where all of us can stand.

Unearthing Common Ground

2008-12-05T08:00:00-05:00

There comes a moment in justice movements when society edges forward just enough that once-heated controversies - suffrage, racial integration, interracial marriage - become part of the cultural fabric. Sexism and racism may continue to simmer, but the overall movement can declare victory and move on.

On Election Day, the reproductive justice movement may have achieved its moment. The election of a pro-choice President-elect puts Roe v. Wade back on firm ground. Ballot measures that would have restricted reproductive health rights in three states were all soundly defeated. The Mexico City Policy, which blocks U.S. aid to international family planning organization that counsel women on abortion, is expected to be quickly reversed. A post-election survey by Faith in Public Life showed that a clear majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal.

The fiercest opponents of women's reproductive rights are not giving up. But over the past few weeks, we have heard a commitment from several Catholic and evangelical Protestant leaders to finding a new common ground on abortion. David Gushee, writing for the Associated Baptist Press, notes that, "Over 80 percent of white evangelicals and Catholics believe elected officials should work together to find ways to reduce abortions by helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, expanding adoption and increasing economic support for women who want to carry their pregnancies to term."

I welcome the support and collaboration of Professor Gushee, as well as Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals and others, who are calling to "reduce the number of abortions." But I am puzzled that their goal is to reduce abortions rather than the unintended pregnancies that force women and families to consider abortion in the first place.

The call to reduce unintended pregnancies is the right one. What we must focus on now are the means to do so - specifically, comprehensive sexuality education (not abstinence-only) and universal access to contraceptive services, including emergency contraception.

The advocates for a new common ground correctly note the correlation between poverty and abortion rates. But they fail to mention how poverty first contributes to unintended pregnancies. Adoption alternatives and economic support for poor pregnant women are important - but these strategies do not address the fact that poor women are at least five times more likely than other women to become pregnant unintentionally.

Here's what the Guttmacher Institute's Susan Cohen wrote the last time an abortion reduction strategy was floated by Democrats for Life in 2006: "While it is theoretically possible that increased social supports for pregnant women and even more 'adoption-positive' problem-pregnancy counseling could have some impact, neither can hope to approach the real reductions in the abortion rate that could be achieved by preventing unintended pregnancy in the first place." (Emphasis added.)

This is the real moral challenge we face. I've worked with thousands of women facing unintended pregnancies. They aren't looking for "abortion on demand"; with only a handful of exceptions, these women sat with me (often with their partners or parents beside them), and they wept as they tried to decide what was best to do. Often they did have financial concerns - not so much about how they would pay for prenatal care or infant care, but about how they could afford to raise a child (or in many cases, another child) to adulthood. Too often, they did not have partners who they wanted to spend their lives with or who could support them. As one of my colleagues has said, such women have "too much responsibility already and too few resources, both personal and economic."

So here is my suggestion for common ground. Let's stop talking about reducing the number of abortions as a goal in itself. Such talk obscures what should be the principal objective - reducing unintended pregnancies - and leads to counterproductive strategies that would place restrictions on abortion access. It also misrepresents the platform that President-elect Obama ran on, which affirmed a woman's right to choose and opposed "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." The Democratic platform called for "access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives," as well as economic support for pregnant women.

Let's start talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position, it is a faithful and moral one as well. Five years ago, the Religious Institute published an Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision, which includes this eloquent and irrefutable statement: "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly."

Surely this is the common ground where all of us - the new Administration, the new Congress, even my Catholic and evangelical colleagues - can proudly stand.

Bristol Palin, Mary Cheney and the Limits of Family Privacy

2008-09-03T08:00:00-04:00

The John McCain campaign says this is a just a private family matter. Sen. Barack Obama says candidates' families, especially children, are off limits. But when family matters relate directly to policy matters, they are fair for discussion.

Obviously, I am referring to the media coverage surrounding Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate, and her pregnant, 17-year-old daughter, Bristol. Gov. Palin's family is asking for privacy, yet the policies of Palin's party do not protect the rights of American women to making their own private decisions about unintended pregnancies.

The situation raises legitimate questions about Gov. Palin's positions on sexuality education, teenage pregnancy and reproductive choice. Americans have every right, and American media the responsibility, to explore those questions without exploiting the child involved. After all, Gov. Palin had no hesitancy sharing the details of her son Track's entering the army, or her personal decisions about her infant, as examples of her commitments to family. How could she expect that her daughter's decisions wouldn't be put into play?

According to MSNBC, Gov. Palin has said that keeping the baby was her daughter's own decision. Really? In 2006, Gov. Palin said that she would not support abortion even in the case of her own daughter becoming pregnant from rape. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that there wasn't much discussion about all of Bristol's legal options when she told her parents about her pregnancy.

I'm also wondering how much talk there was about sexual limit-setting beyond "just say no" and contraception in the Palin household. Gov. Palin opposes comprehensive sexuality education, and supports abstinence-only-until-marriage education. If abstinence-only-until-marriage doesn't work in your own home, how can you expect it to work for the country's teenagers?

The research, as I've written in my books for parents, is quite clear. In homes where parents talk openly about sexuality, including their values about premarital sex, contraception and STD prevention, their children are more likely to delay sexual activity and to protect themselves if they do have sex. Comprehensive sexuality education programs have a far better record of helping young people abstain and protect themselves than abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Perhaps Gov. Palin will now reconsider her (and Sen. McCain's) positions on teenage pregnancy prevention.

"Family privacy" only goes so far. The Clintons were famously protective of their daughter Chelsea's privacy during their years in the White House, and admirably so. Yet it was a legitimate issue for public discussion in 1993 when the Clintons, after campaigning for strong public schools, chose to send their daughter to a private school instead.

Then there was Mary Cheney in 2004. Cheney, no child, nevertheless sheltered behind her parents' indignation when John Kerry raised the question of how the Bush-Cheney ticket's opposition to lesbian and gay civil rights would affect the vice president's own daughter. Rather than address the question, Cheney and wife Lynne excoriated Kerry for violating their family's privacy. Lesbian and gay Americans never got a fair hearing after that. We must not let that happen this time.

My organization recently wrote to both campaigns, urging them to support comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education; access to affordable sexual health and reproductive services, including abortion and adoption services; and full equality, including civil marriage, for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. The situation in Gov. Palin's family must not be allowed to shroud these issues. If anything, it makes addressing them even more urgent.

This post first appeared on Huffington Post.

Don't Leave Sex Out of Saddleback

2008-08-15T08:00:00-04:00

You may remember the "Compassion Forum" last April at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, where Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spoke of their personal faith and America's response to poverty, AIDS and the environment. Unfortunately, there was little room at the Compassion Forum for women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons, whose issues were largely ignored. It didn't help that almost every questioner from the audience was a white male Evangelical, and the event was hosted by an institution hostile to LGBT concerns.

Now, this Saturday, comes the "Saddleback Civil Forum" at Saddleback Church, the Southern California megachurch led by the Rev. Rick Warren. Rev. Warren, who will engage in separate, one-on-one conversations with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, promises a dialogue dedicated to "civil discourse and the common good of all."

The question remains whether those of us who advocate for sexual and reproductive justice will be included in that "all." Rev. Warren is anti-choice, and he recently declined to meet with a group of gay and lesbian Christians who were visiting his church. Both the Compassion Forum and the Civil Forum made a point of addressing a social agenda that excludes sexual and reproductive justice. Rev. Warren intends to talk about "pressing issues that are bridging divides in our nation, such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate and human rights." Messiah College trumpeted these same concerns (in strikingly similar language) as "pressing moral issues that bridge ideological divides within our nation."

My fear is that, on Saturday, we will once again witness the politics of exclusion wrapped in the language of faith. Everyone from Newsweek to the New York Times has played up the story of how religious leaders from different points on the political spectrum have agreed to put aside the so-called "wedge issues" -- such as sexual health, reproductive rights and marriage equality -- in favor of other moral issues with broader appeal.

The problem is, while bridges can help us address certain critical problems, they create barriers for others. In marginalizing issues of sexual and reproductive justice, they marginalize millions of Americans, adults and children alike. There is no denying the numbers: One third of American girls get pregnant before age 20. At least 35 million American women have had abortions. The number of same-sex households in America is surely much higher than the 600,000 the Census Bureau officially reports. More than one million children are being raised in these households.

Sexual and reproductive issues also are directly related to economic justice. When Saturday's conversations turn to poverty, will Rev. Warren, Senator McCain or Senator Obama acknowledge the particular burden that marriage discrimination, inequitable access to reproductive health services and the lack of comprehensive sexuality education place on the poor?

I respectfully request that Rev. Warren consider asking the candidates these questions:

1. Recognizing that rates of unintended births are five times higher among low-income women, that more than half of the unwanted children in the U.S. are born into poverty, and that HIV/AIDS infections disproportionately affect poor communities and people of color, how will you ensure that all citizens, regardless of income or ethnicity, have access to affordable sexual and reproductive health services?

2. As more states move toward marriage equality or civil unions for same-sex couples, what will you do to ensure that the 1,138 federal benefits that come with marriage (including tax benefits, Social Security benefits and veterans' benefits) be made available to all legally joined couples and their families?

3. Now that a Congressional study acknowledges that abstinence-only-until marriage programs have no impact on reducing teen pregnancy, delaying sexual initiation, or reducing sexually transmitted infections, will you commit to reversing 10 years of failed investment and issuing a commitment to comprehensive sexuality education?

I recognize that Rev. Warren and the Saddleback Church are a big voice in American religion. Yet I can't help but wonder why CNN, and the campaigns themselves, have chosen once again to feature a specifically Evangelical Christian venue to discuss American moral values. Evangelical Christians speak for little more than a quarter of the people of faith in this country. America is the most religiously diverse nation in the world; no single religious voice can possibly represent all traditions.

Millions of progressive religious voters will be paying attention to the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday. Will our concerns get a fair hearing?

This article was first posted at Huffington Post.

Time to Talk to Rev. Wallis on Reducing Unintended Pregnancy

2008-07-08T08:00:00-04:00

Rev. Jim Wallis, the Director of Sojourners, and I have had several public and private discussions about abortion in the U.S. He believes and writes that the dialog about abortion has to change, and that both pro-choice and anti-choice persons need to agree to work to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. He said so again in this week's Newsweek online.

My point, also repeated in each of these dialogs, is that we need to agree to reduce the numbers of unplanned pregnancies in the U.S. It is precisely because life is sacred and parenthood is precious that no woman, no couple, no family should be forced to deal with a potential life that is begun carelessly. Jim and I agree that abortion is a moral decision; what we don't agree on is that it is always a tragedy. I also cannot support abortion reduction as a goal in itself as long as there are active forces trying to make the procedure illegal or enact restrictions that make it almost impossible to get.

Here's what Rev. Wallis said on belief.net last week:

On abortion. I have repeatedly said that I believe abortion is wrong and always a moral tragedy. The number of unborn lives that are lost every year is alarming. But I also do not believe that the best way to change that is to criminalize abortions and just force them underground. The question is how can we actually prevent unwanted pregnancies, protect unborn lives, support low-income women, offer compassionate alternatives to abortion, make adoption much more accessible and affordable, carefully fashion reasonable restrictions, and thus dramatically reduce the shamefully high abortion rate in America? You say you want to respect the will of the people. Well, every opinion poll shows the same thing - substantial majorities think that there are too many abortions and that we should pursue measures to reduce and restrict the number, but they do not support overturning Roe v. Wade.

What Rev. Wallis isn't telling you is that the abortion rate is at its lowest since 1974, a year after Roe v. Wade. Abortions are coming down in the U.S. The abortion rate is down 100,000 since 2000, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

What Rev. Wallis isn't telling you is that a majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and that 62% of mainline Christians and 84% of Jews believe that.

What Rev. Wallis isn't telling you is that according to the Guttmacher Institute, placing restrictions, whatever "reasonable restrictions" might be, doesn't make abortions rarer, it makes them less safe.

And despite my reading his paragraph over and over again, it appears that what Rev. Wallis isn't calling for is hope for young women for productive futures through quality education and job opportunities (as was missing in last week's stories on the supposed pregnancy pact), sexuality education, and high quality family planning services. Rev. Wallis, as a pro-choice feminist and minister, I will do everything I can to work with you on assuring adoption services and high quality prenatal care and parenting support -- when will we see you working to assure women AND men have access to the means to prevent pregnancies in the first place?

Sisterhood of the Maternity Pants

2008-06-23T08:00:00-04:00

Is it mere coincidence that Jamie Lynn Spears, the 17-year-old actor and sister of Britney, had her baby on Thursday, just one day after Time magazine reported a "pregnancy boom" at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts? Some might say that coincidence is God's way of getting our attention. There certainly is a common thread in these stories that we should think hard about and address.

Now, I am not among those who will quickly condemn Jamie Lynn or any of the pregnant young women in Gloucester. I am not among those will dismiss all of this as yet another product of a sinful culture, further evidence of the decline of morality. Nevertheless, it is difficult for this minister and sexologist not to wonder along with many, "What were they thinking?"

Time reports that as many as 17 young women in Gloucester had formed a pact to get pregnant together and support each other when they have babies. It seems that all were having sex with men in their twenties who were not their boyfriends. Surely in today's world, somewhere along the line, these young women had to know that unprotected sex was not a good idea, that having a child as a teenager would change their lives forever. It's easy to be glib and assume they weren't thinking about the consequences or their futures.

Or perhaps they were. If what we know from national research holds true in Gloucester, these girls probably came from homes where there was little discussion about sexuality. I'm guessing some of these girls came from homes with too little supervision and a permissive atmosphere, where they learned that teen sex wasn't such a big deal. Conversely, some may have come from homes that were too strict, where they felt disconnected from their own family and sought to create their own. No doubt they were thinking like early adolescents: concentrating on what would be fun about new babies, baby showers, extra attention, and someone who would love them unconditionally. The need for love may be their most immediate and urgent need.

Perhaps no one ever told them that the possibilities for their longer-term futures -- including love, family, education and prosperity -- are much greater if only they would delay motherhood until their twenties or later. Sadly, though, as one of their classmates said, these young women chose pregnancy because "no one's offered them a better option." Perhaps their parents did not understand the importance of talking with their children about sexuality, offering their values, and helping them understand how to set sexual limits.

How might we as a society respond to these stories?

I hope our first response is one of compassion, not judgment. For the young women in Gloucester, I hope the community will be there to help them and their children. It is time for the school board in Gloucester to stop arguing about contraceptive services at the school health clinics, and assure that the school offers sexuality education that includes not only abstinence and contraception, but help in making healthy sexual decisions and preparing for the future.

For the rest of us, the message in these stories is that we must be prepared -- as parents, educators and clergy -- to talk openly and honestly about sexuality with our 'tween and teen children. We must explicitly share our values about when sexual intercourse is appropriate (after high school, in a committed relationship, when engaged, only after marriage, whatever your values may be).

The research on this is clear -- when parents talk explicitly about sexuality, share their values, set limits on dating behavior, and offer unconditional love, teenagers respond. They either delay sexual activity altogether, or they use contraception when they do become sexually active. (I have written more about this in my books Beyond the Big Talk and What Every 21st Century Parent Needs to Know.)

My advice to parents is simply this: Start tonight's dinner conversation by asking your teens if they have heard about Ms. Spears and the "pregnancy pact." Ask them what they think. Listen. Share your values and hopes for them. Tell them you love them and are there for them, and that their lives will be easier, better, if they wait to become parents until they are adults.

It's not a complicated discussion. We'll be having it at my dinner table tonight. I hope millions of American families will be doing the same.

Every Child Born Healthy and Wanted

2007-12-12T09:37:00-05:00

I am a Jewish Unitarian Universalist minister sexologist - and that means in the coming weeks, my family will celebrate Chanukah, the Winter Solstice, and Christmas. We will light candles, decorate our home, sing songs, exchange presents, and, I hope, take the time to breathe and be grateful.

The mission of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing is to advocate for sexuality education, sexual health, and sexual justice in America's faith communities and society in general. We help congregations become sexually healthy faith communities and work with sexual and reproductive health organizations reach out to faith communities.

The stories of both Christmas and Chanukah resonate with our ministry to promote a progressive religious voice on sexuality issues. We speak out against injustice and for religious diversity. Chanukah is the first recorded battle for religious freedom and against efforts to have a minority religion assimilated into a larger whole, a struggle again religious fundamentalism that still goes on today. The miracle story of the oil that burned for a week instead of its expected one day is a legend of hope and grace.

We work with faith communities to understand the need for sexuality education for children, youth, and adults in the context of religious education. A plain text reading of the Gospel of Matthew begins with a frightened pregnant teenage woman and the young man who decides not to leave her. Joseph is told in a dream that the baby is to be named "Emmanuel," which the text tells us means "God is with us." The Gospel of Luke tells of their journey to find a safe place for the child to be born.

Our work to assure that every child is born healthy and wanted is reflected in these stories. In my denomination, children learn that just like the wise men visiting the baby Jesus, all new babies are to be welcomed. Emanuel, God is with us, is the promise of every child that is born, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. It is the understanding that it is in our relationships that we can experience the divine.

These miracle stories are our stories today, and the stories of those most marginalized and most vulnerable. The stories together remind us that in the darkest of winters, in the physical world or in the dark parts of our souls, even the tiniest light can with faith become brighter and stronger, until the whole world is filled with that light once again. As reproductive and sexual health advocates, they remind us, that every human life, no matter how humble his or her beginnings, can indeed bless the entire world.

May it be so.

Visit RH Reality Check throughout December to read about the ways in which individuals, both clergy and lay people, connect their religion or spirituality to their commitment to reproductive rights. The other pieces in this series can be found here.

Religious Leaders Must Support Justice for All

2007-06-11T09:00:00-04:00

Last week, The Gallup Poll reported that support for gay rights is at its highest point in three decades, and New Hampshire became the latest state to allow civil unions for same sex couples. Nearly 90 percent of Americans believe that gay people should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities, 60 percent of people believe that same-sex relations should be legal, 57 percent believes that homosexuality should be considered "acceptable", and support for marriage for same sex couples has risen to 46 percent from 27 percent a decade ago. Support for gay and lesbians is highest among those who understand the science that sexual orientation is innate and those who attend church "nearly weekly/monthly" or who attend less often or never.

However, support is considerably lower among people who report weekly attendance at worship services. Many of the countries mainstream religious denominations continue to be roiled by controversies around the ordination of gay and lesbian persons and performing marriages for same sex couples, and the country's two largest denominations, the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Association, continue to condemn same sex sexual behaviors and committed relationships.

However, an increasing number of religious leaders and religious institutions now recognize that people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities are assets to faith communities and society and not problems to be solved. At least ten denominations ordain openly gay and lesbian clergy persons, at least five have ordained transgender clergy, and nearly a dozen permit their clergy to officiate at civil unions or marriages of same sex couples. Most denominations—from the Baptists to the Mormons to Roman Catholics to mainstream Protestants—have either officially affiliated organizations or independent organizations that are working for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons (LGBT) in the life of the faith community.

On June 4, 2007, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing issued an Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Sexual and Gender Diversity (PDF) that challenges religious leaders to use the pulpit to address the complex realities of sexual and gender diversity and to advocate in secular and faith-based contexts for justice and the full inclusion of LGBT people.

Created by a coalition of theologians from Jewish, Christian, and Catholic backgrounds, the Open Letter laments the damage done to gay, lesbian, and transgender people by the silence or, worse, open condemnation of religious leaders. The Open Letter says, "Some have mistakenly called homosexuality sinful when the real issue is heterosexism or the unjust privileging of heterosexuality. Heterosexism devalues gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, just as sexism and male privilege devalue women." Religious condemnation and ignorance has fueled violence and discrimination against LGBT people and led to despair and even suicides within the LGBT community. The Open Letter forcefully states that "sexual and gender oppression can no longer be portrayed as virtuous and morally defensible" and that "using the Bible to exclude or attack people violates the very spirit of our traditions and is morally unconscionable."

The Open Letter urges religious leaders to take action to address the needs of LGBT congregants and their families. It calls on clergy to educate themselves and their faith communities on the diversity of human sexualities and gender identities. It asks religious leaders to assure that they have the training to address the pastoral needs of congregants on issues related to sexual and gender diversity, such as the birth of an intersexed child, the coming-out process of a youth or adult, or an individual who is transitioning genders. It calls on clergy to use the pulpit and public podium to acknowledge the complex realities of personal experience and to condemn discrimination and violence against LGBT persons. It asks religious leaders to work within their own denominations and multi-faith organizations for sexual justice and the full social and legal inclusion of LGBT persons, including marriage equality.

Throughout June, cities around the country will be celebrating Pride Days to highlight the contributions of LGBT persons, and many congregations from a range of denominations will be holding Pride Worship services to affirm diverse sexual orientations and gender identities as part of God's blessing. More religious leaders must become involved in publicly speaking out for the rights of LGBT persons—to live and love with dignity and respect in a world that understands that our sexual diversity is part of God's intention for us. Support for LGBT persons is higher now than ever before—but religious leaders who understand and articulate that sexual justice is an essential part of social justice can help people of faith and good will understand that the promise of "liberty and justice" must extend to everyone.

Thank you, Clergy Consultation Service

2007-05-22T08:45:00-04:00

People often ask me if the work we are doing at the Religious Institute, organizing progressive religious leaders who will speak out for sexual justice, is new.

I always answer "no". That it continues a tradition that goes back to the Bible (think of the persons who spoke for the Song being included in the canon), the early church (think of Jovinian and Julian who argued for the virtues of marriage not virginity), think of Martin Luther speaking out against a required celibate clergy.

But, you may not know about Rev. Howard Moody and the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion. Forty years old on May 21st, Rev. Moody organized clergy, first in New York, and then across the country, to provide counseling and support for women with unwanted pregnancies when abortion was illegal.

Their press release, covered in a front page story in The New York Times, read:

Therefore believing as clergymen that there are higher laws and moral obligations transcending legal codes, we believe that it is our pastoral responsibility and religious duty to give aid and assistance to all women with problem pregnancies. To that end we are establishing a Clergymen's Consultation Service on Abortion which will include referral to the best available medical advice and aid to women in need.

Ultimately, according to the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice, more than 1400 ministers and rabbis joined the Clergy Service, risking arrest to provide women with the pastoral support and services they needed. Rev. Moody has said that at one point he was offering counseling to women from around the country, six hours a day, five days a week.

Saturday, Rev. Moody and the Consultation Service were honored at a service at Judson Memorial Church, New York, NY. I was honored to be asked to be a speaker, but couldn't attend because it was my daughter's graduation from college this weekend. What would I have said? Thank you. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your bravery. Thank you for your commitment to women's lives. Thank you for the risks you took. Thank you for setting the foundation for organizing religious leaders to speak out for sexual justice. Thank you for being the shoulders we stand on.

Republished with permission from "Sexuality and Religion: What's the connection?"

Broadway Review: Spring Crushing?

2007-03-16T09:00:00-04:00

The Rev. Debra W. Haffner is the Director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing.
Editor's note: Spoiler alert.

My college age daughter and I went to see Spring Awakening on Wednesday. Hailed as a bold and ground-breaking Broadway musical concerned with adolescent sexuality, I expected to love it.

I didn't.

The story included bad parent-child commmunication about sex, nocturnal emissions, masturbation, group masturbation, incest, beatings, group masturbation, first intercourse, same sex exploration, illegal abortion, and suicide. I couldn't help wonder about the out-of-town tourist who thought they were going to see a musical like Cats and Phantom. Even I was uncomfortable with the scene where the hero is center stage masturbating to orgasm, singing the entire time. But it wasn't the topics that upset me, but the underlying message. Yes, sexual ignorance led to pregnancy ... but sexual knowledge led to reform school. The young in love couple's attraction began with violence and ended with both of their deaths. In fact, all three of the main characters are dead by the end of the play.

Rather than the celebration of adolescent sexuality I expected, Spring Awakening ultimately delivers the message that adolescent exploration leads to despair and death. Joy, fun, pleasure, excitement were all strangely missing. Although I'm guessing my most conservative readers might be upset by the sexual explicitness, I think the abstinence-only folks would agree with the ending. I on the other hand kept thinking of Universalist minister John Murray saying "give them hope not hell." I wish they had.

Republished with permission from Debra Haffner's blog.
Editor's note: Check out Bill Smith's positive review of Spring Awakening.
With two of our favorite writers in such disagreement about this musical, we encourage you to see the show and decide for yourself. If you have seen it already, post a comment to let us know what you think!

Beyond Abstinence-Only: Speaking Out on Adolescent Sexuality

2007-02-15T08:00:00-05:00

The United States may be raising some of the most sexually confused adolescents in the world. Movies, advertising, web sites, music, and television shows give teens the message that “everyone is doing it,” while the official policy of the federal government and 46 states is abstinence-only until marriage. And most parents, schools, and religious institutions say little to nothing to adolescents about their sexual behaviors, sexual orientation, and sexual health, even though one recent report revealed that the vast majority of Americans have been having sex before marriage for decades.

Caught between “just do it” and “just say no,” with little moral guidance for making healthy decisions, more than six in 10 adolescents engage in sexual intercourse by the time they leave high school. Each year, about 800,000 of them become pregnant and approximately 25 percent contract a sexually transmitted disease.

The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing is therefore releasing a new “Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Adolescent Sexuality,” the first theological statement of its kind by any group of religious leaders to address adolescent sexuality openly and honestly. The Open Letter recognizes the sexual rights of adolescents, including their right to full, accurate information and to acceptance within the faith community, regardless of the sexual decisions they have made. The Open Letter also lays out specific actions that faith communities need to take to promote those rights, including:

Supporting parents in teaching children and adolescents about sexuality.
Creating an honest, open environment for discussion of sexuality issues, including age- appropriate sexuality education for youth in the context of faith values.
Collaborating with community organizations to promote adolescent sexual health.
Recognizing the sexual diversity of adolescents in their congregations, including those who are sexually active and those who are gay and lesbian.

The Open Letter was developed at a colloquium sponsored by the Religious Institute, including theologians and ordained clergy from Jewish, Baptist, Brethren, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalist perspectives.

These theologians are calling on religious communities to recognize the realities of today’s adolescents, who reach puberty earlier and marry later than any other generation in history. Religious institutions must do a better job of helping adolescents make responsible and informed choices about their sexual behavior. After all, religious institutions serve more teens than any other agency in the community except the public schools, and they are the only ones specifically empowered to offer values-based education to children outside of the home. As schools have become more restricted in what they can teach about sexuality, religious institutions must provide more comprehensive information in a values context.

Yet most religious institutions are either silent on these issues or fail to provide the guidance or information teenagers need to make healthy moral decisions. Fewer than 10 national denominations have curricula addressing adolescent sexuality. Only the “Our Whole Lives” program created by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ and the new “Sacred Choices” program of the Union for Reform Judaism provide comprehensive information about sexual decision-making, sexual behaviors beyond abstinence, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, the Southern Baptist Association’s “True Love Waits” program developed the concept of “abstinence pledges,” which has been adapted for schools and churches across the country. Research has shown that pledgers have higher rates of oral and anal sex than non-pledgers and lower rates of condom and contraceptive use when they break their pledges—which 88 percent of them do.

It is time for all faith communities to move beyond “chastity in singleness” to recognize the sexual rights of adolescents and help them discern their readiness for mature sexual relationships.

The United States has provided more than a billion dollars for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the last decade, but no funding for comprehensive sexuality education. As religious leaders, we have a responsibility to speak out against educational programs that deny young people the medically accurate information they need to protect themselves and others. We must also oppose parental notification and consent laws that restrict teens’ access to life-saving reproductive health services.

Stepping up to our responsibilities in this area requires a strong commitment and new types of training. In most churches, synagogues, and mosques, human sexuality remains shrouded in silence. The majority of our clergy receive little or no training in seminary to address sexuality issues in their congregations, particularly adolescent sexuality. We hope that the new “Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Adolescent Sexuality” will encourage not only dialogue but action. “Just Say No” can no longer be accepted as a moral response.

Republished with permission from the Center for American Progress.

Latest Attempt to Mandate Bad Information

2006-12-05T16:41:52-05:00

The Rev. Debra W. Haffner is the Director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing.

The House of Representatives this week is scheduled to vote on a bill titled the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006." Republicans are hurrying to have this bill considered before the new Congress takes over.

The bill requires that every woman in America who is having an abortion after 20 weeks receive a pamphlet that says that abortion causes pain to the fetus and that they have been offered fetal anesthesia.

The problem? Well according to a review article by the American Medical Association, "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester," and there is "little or no evidence" of the effectiveness of fetal anesthesia and "limited or no data" on the safety of administering it.

In other words, anti-choice legislators are attempting to pass a bill that is not consistent with what science is telling us in order to discourage women from having abortions. They are also trying to legislate medical practice based on false information.

That's not just bad medicine -- it's bad ethics. Women have the right to complete and unbiased information when they are making decisions about the future of pregnancies. My understanding is that most abortions after 20 weeks are because of fetal abnormality and the mother's health. Adding to the mother's pain at this time is wrong. Tell your Congressperson to vote no.

Republished with permission from Sexuality and Religion: What's the Connection?

Telling Teens Not to French Kiss

2006-09-13T08:47:52-04:00

The Rev. Debra W. Haffner is the Director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing.

I've just read a new article titled "Legislating Against Arousal" in the latest copy of the Guttmacher Institute's journal.

Cythnia Dailard reports that the federal government, nearly ten years since the start of the abstinence-only-until-marriage program has finally defined what they mean by abstinence. The new guidelines say that abstinence is "voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage." They define sexual activity as "any type of genital activity or sexual stimulation between two persons."Sexual stimulation? Let's see, that could include flirting, hand holding, kissing, french kissing...watching someone in tight jeans bend over and pick up a fork on the floor of the middle school cafeteria. Come on...were these people ever teenagers? And any type of genital activity until marriage? Let's remember that the average age of marriage is now 26 in the United States. Could the people who wrote these regulations really think it is realistic to ask in-love teens and twenty somethings prior to marriage not to share any type of stimulating behaviors? And what about gay and lesbians who are denied the right to marriage? I guess they better avoid stimulation throughout their lives.

This would be laughable if we weren't pouring millions of dollars into these programs each year. They offer bad public health advice to young people, and I think they fail to offer moral advice to young people as well. Frankly, as a minister, I would refuse to marry a couple who told me that they had shared no sexual behaviors at all; sexuality is too important in a marriage, and the decision to be married is too sacred, to have NO information about each other's sexuality prior to the wedding day. It's hard to believe that it is federal policy to encourage such ignorance.

Instead, we should be helping young people celebrate their developing sexuality, one of God's most life affirming gifts, in developmentally appropriate ways. In October, the Religious Institute will be convening a group of theologians to develop a new Open Letter on Adolescent Sexuality. I look forward to sharing it with you.

Read Ms. Dailard's full article for yourself here.

Overcoming Religiophobia

2006-06-19T10:51:27-04:00

The Rev. Debra W. Haffner is the Director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing.

I went into the ministry following a 25-year career as a sexologist. People are often surprised when I introduce myself as a minister and as a sexologist. But I believe that our sexuality and our spirituality are intimately connected, and that at its foundation, my work in the sexual and reproductive health field, and now my work as a minister, share a common moral vision - to teach people how to treat each other with love, dignity, and respect.

People in the SRH field come to work each day because of our values and because we want to make a difference. In theological terms, we are called to tikkun olam, to save the world - to heal the brokenness that so many suffer around unintended pregnancies, coerced and exploitive sexual experiences, attacks on bodily integrity, soul-numbing denial of one's sexual or gender identity, violence against women and sexual minorities, and children who are not loved or wanted. We believe that injustice and suffering in the world are intolerable and that the work we do empowering people to make and live healthy decisions about their sexuality and reproductive health makes a difference.

But too many SRH organizations are characterized by what I have labeled "religiophobia": a fear of religion, which translates into a reluctance to engage faith communities in their work or to directly address moral values. Many of us are bone weary of the religious right and on a personal level turned off by organized religion. Yet faith communities can be important partners in SRH. Readers of this blog may request a complimentary copy of our new booklet, "Reaching Out to Faith Communities: A Guide for Sexual and Reproductive Health Organizations" that provides practical, concrete suggestions for engaging faith communities.

Organized religion has contributed to our cultural and often personal confusion about sexuality. Many of us grew up in faith communities that taught that our sexual feelings were wrong. We may have learned that homosexuality, masturbation, premarital sex, or even pleasure is wrong. Or our religion may have simply been silent about sexuality, ignoring the intimate connection between sexuality and spirituality.

But that is changing. There is a growing movement in the United States to reclaim the authentic religious voice that affirms our sexuality as one of God's most life fulfilling and life sustaining gifts. It is a movement that is firmly based in Scripture and religious tradition.

More than 2500 clergy and theologians from more than 40 religious denominations have endorsed the Religious Declaration for Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing. The Religious Declaration calls for a new paradigm for sexual morality that is not based on specific sexual acts, but on personal relationships. It calls for relationships that are loving, mutual, committed, honest, and pleasurable, and a moral ethic that accepts no double standards.

The Religious Declaration calls for sexual justice. It asks for full inclusion of women and sexual minorities in the life of the faith community. It calls for sexuality education and a faith-based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights.

These 2500 religious leaders are challenging the voice of the religious right on sexuality issues. As people of faith, we are speaking for abortion rights, for full inclusion of gays and lesbians, for faith communities free of sexual abuse and harassment, for comprehensive sexuality education, and for stem cell research.

We are challenging the so-called morality of the Religious Right, asking, "Is it moral to coerce women into carrying a pregnancy to term? Is it moral to deny young people life saving information? Is it moral to tell committed couples that they cannot marry or gays and lesbians that they are not welcome in our pulpits?"

People of faith believe that God rejoices when we celebrate our sexuality with holiness and integrity. Join with us.