Cristina Page's blog http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/831/atom/feed 2009-02-28T11:13:15-05:00 Peace & Persuasion http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/11/06/a-persuasive-peace 2009-11-09T07:00:00-05:00 2009-11-08T20:31:51-05:00 Cristina Page Of all the domestic pursuits of Obama's first year, his common ground efforts on abortion have possibly been the most thankless. At some points it appeared the only common ground he had inspired was to unite both sides against it. Yet, each has much to gain by Obama's peace plans. Obama's mission may be to usher in a new way to think about political conflict - an aspiration so lofty it earned him the Nobel Prize for the aspiration alone. His goal seems to be to appeal to and, simultaneously, to foster a moderate middle, a reasonable group that can talk to, rather than past, each other. If he's going to succeed in the abortion conflict he's first got to confront those who perceive common ground as a threat.

Obama's message has met with resistance, not only from the extreme right which reflexively opposes everything he does, but liberals too have been hesitant, and even distrustful, of common ground language. Rev. Carlton Veazey, of the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, called attempts at common ground "troubling." Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, suggests history is doomed to repeat itself summarizing plainly, "I tried a common-ground thing in 1979." The pro-choice movement has reason to be cautious. For many pro-choicers, there's no evidence to suggest the anti-abortion establishment is suddenly going to embrace prevention of unintended pregnancy (there's not one pro-life group in the US that supports contraception after all,) or rally behind supports for struggling families (those voting against social programs on which struggling families support, Like WIC, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Head Start, are almost exclusively pro-life elected officials.) The May murder of Dr. Tiller remains fresh in our minds--so joint anti-violence efforts, while critically needed, feel a little hard to picture. The health care reform debate, with abortion serving as the primary derailing issue, offers another opportunity to grow jaded about common ground prospects.

But the search for common ground offers a rare opportunity. Obama has, if not awakened, then given voice to what appears to be a long silent majority of reasonable pro-life Americans. His common ground call has appealed to moderate pro-lifers most of whom support contraception and sex education, even if they don't trumpet it. And, most importantly, Obama's common ground charge may, at last, be pushing to the margins the extremists who have for so long dominated the headlines (and the fundraising) on the right.

Twice as many young white evangelicals voted for Obama than did for Kerry in 2006 (32% vs. 16%) and] Obama also won the majority of the Catholic vote. Undecided voters were moved by Obama's common ground vision. Indeed, the majority of Americans, including those affiliated with traditionally pro-life faiths, believe in common ground. According to a 2008 poll by Faith in Public Life, 53% of Americans believe political leaders can find common ground while staying true to their core beliefs. Majorities of white mainline Protestants (59%), Catholics (55%), and the unaffiliated (52%) believe common ground on abortion is truly possible.

What's troubling is that Obama has come up short in appealing to the very liberals who have been most receptive to his policies and his ambitions. And that could be unfortunate for the left leaning as well as for Obama. After all, Obama's broad strokes common ground plan reads like the agenda of a Feminist Majority conference: Preventing unintended pregnancy; supporting poor women with wanted pregnancies; expanding reproductive choice by making adoption more available; improving maternal and infant health; preventing violence in the abortion conflict. Inroads in any one of these areas, let alone all of them, would be worth a break in the hostilities. Hardliners on the right would be unlikely to mount an opposition effort to any either.

With his speech at Notre Dame, Obama spoke directly to pro-life Americans. He was not dissuaded by extremist groups protests over his appearance or their attempts to portray him as "the most pro-abortion president ever." One of Obama's greatest talents as a leader is his deep trust in the American public's ability to see through artifice and hyperbole. As ABC News reported, Obama went to Notre Dame and "entered the arena to thunderous applause and a standing ovation from many in the crowd of 12,000." Despite what the anti-abortion protests outside would suggest, the vast majority of pro-life people there were open to what he had to say and could see there are shared goals pro-lifers and pro-choicers seek. He didn't allow the extremists shouting outside the door to define the day.

There are many more such "teachable moments," as Obama himself likes to say, that haven't been taken full advantage of. Obama must continue to speak directly to the pro-life public, translate how his policies serve their greater goals. Take healthcare reform. The states with the most uninsured tend to also be the most "pro-life" politically given the pro-life campaigns against healthcare reform a disturbing angle. Industrialized nations that provide their citizens with universal health insurance (the US is the only one that does not), like those of Western and Northern Europe, have the lowest abortion rates in the world-- that's unlikely to be a coincidence. Pro-life Americans are able to do the math when informed that it costs a pregnant woman without health insurance is $6,000-$8,000 for delivery alone while an abortion will cost her about $400. The pragmatic pro-lifer gets it and is interested in more constructive ways to be pro-life than yelling while holding a sign. Obama can tap that desire.

Common ground is a great idea and a great possibility. The task ahead for Obama is to first convince those who stand to benefit the most by it.

 





]]> Pro-life Pretense http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/10/21/an-inconsistent-truth 2009-10-21T08:00:00-04:00 2009-10-23T08:42:35-04:00 Cristina Page ]]> President Obama’s still-to-be released common ground agenda in the
abortion conflict is already having a profound and largely overlooked effect: it has exposed deep fault lines in the pro-life movement.
Obama’s focus on reducing the need for abortion has been embraced by
some practical-minded pro-lifers who are tired of decades of
intransigence, and who also appear jaded by the counterproductive
“culture of life” sloganeering of President Bush. Pro-choice Bill
Clinton presided over the most dramatic decline in abortion rates in
the history of our country after all. Pro-lifers Reagan, Bush I and
Bush II did not. For an emerging movement of reasoned,
results-oriented, non-ideological pro-lifers results count. If a
pro-choice president produces pro-life outcomes, they ask, are they
any less worthy?

For the traditional pro-life establishment, however, they are. In
fact, to them, Obama’s common ground call is perceived as a threat.
Since Obama takes them, their beliefs and their proposals seriously
they have been forced to justify some fundamental hypocrisies,
the kind that have in the past led to rhetorical victories and little
progress (unless you count fundraising). Consider, for example, the
clash between pro-life rhetoric and reality when it comes to crisis
pregnancy centers, a much-cherished initiative of the old guard
pro-lifer. A recent report, “A Passion to Serve, a Vision for Life,”
released by the Family Research Council is a valentine to the nation’s
3,000 crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). It commends them for
communicating “to women and their families that their lives are
valuable and that their needs – emotional, psychological, medical,
spiritual and practical – can and will be met .”

The report details the intense efforts CPCs undertake to persuade
women to not choose abortion. The main message broadcast to those
coming to a center is: “support is available, you do not need to
discontinue this pregnancy for financial reasons.”  But beside the
ultrasound image women are provided and medically inaccurate pitch
against abortion, the most persuasive arguments available to CPCs, as
any staff or volunteer will readily admit, is that women facing crisis pregnancies can make it work by depending on a network of publicly-funded social services. For the vast majority of women convinced to become mothers, CPCs are a gateway to the welfare system.

Theoretically, a pro-life, common ground approach then would be to
take seriously the benefits of CPCs as, essentially, referral agencies
to services which can support women who really do want to keep a
pregnancy. And also to say, "Let’s make sure the right social services
are in place – those that women really need – and that they are
well-funded."

And here’s where that old-guard rhetoric runs into the brick wall of
common ground (and fact-based) reality. The Family Research Council
valentine to crisis pregnancy centers may sound pretty, and even
compelling, but on closer examination is it sincere? In effect, groups
like the Family Research Council as well as most pro-life politicians
have been two-timing their devoted crisis pregnancy center partners.
While professing their love for their work, they batter the social
programs on which the crisis pregnancy center movement places its
trust.

The Family Research Council carefully details in its report the many
federal and state-sponsored programs to which CPCs direct women
including: Head Start, Medicaid, Local Health Departments, Legal Aid,
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-Chip), State Health
Departments, Women Infants & Children (WIC), and the Department of Job and Family Services.

Yet when it’s suggested that support for these very agencies should
merit pro-life support, the Family Research Council lines up in
opposition. Michael New, a senior fellow at the Family Research
Council, recently launched an attack on the progressive, pro-common
ground, pro-life group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
(CACG) for suggesting just that. CACG conducted a study linking states
that provide more generous services to the poor with lower abortion
rates. CACG suggested that to reduce abortion rates pro-lifers should
consider the policies traditionally championed by Democrats--
extending publicly-funded social services to poor pregnant women--
rather than exclusively focus on restricting abortion. But suddenly,
the programs that are so effective when used as resources by crisis
pregnancy centers, are suspect. New writes,

“[The study’s] questionable methodology and inconsistent results
should give pro-lifers serious pause before they enthusiastically
embrace higher welfare benefits as a strategy to reduce abortion.
Furthermore, there is little peer-reviewed research which indicates
that more generous welfare benefits have a significant impact. [Other
studies] find that welfare benefits only have a marginal impact on
abortion rates. However, as I will discuss later in the response,
there exists plenty of evidence from studies in reputable peer
reviewed journals that various types of pro-life laws reduce abortion
rates.”

New himself didn’t miss the chance to praise the work of crisis
pregnancy centers; he weighed in when the Family Research Council
report came out, writing,  “PRCs have offered real alternatives to
literally millions of women facing crisis pregnancies. Countless women
regret their abortions. However, the testimonials in FRC's latest
report are evidence of the positive impact of the life-affirming
options offered by many pregnancy-resource centers.”  Of course, the
“life-affirming” options are now no more than a euphemism for the
“welfare” which, according to New, has a “marginal impact on abortion
rates.

New’s attack on the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’s policy
proposal is a reflection of an all-consuming hypocrisy plaguing an
ideologically entrenched pro-life establishment. Crisis Pregnancy
Centers rely on a welfare system to support the women they persuade
to become mothers while pro-life groups and politicians actively
undermine the very programs and agencies that are the only resources
available to support many women who want to have a child, as CPCs
know.

In 2007, The Children’s Defense Fund published its Congressional
Scorecard on the best and worst legislators for children. The
organization scored congressmembers votes on many of the policies that
help pregnant women decide whether to parent or abort. The votes were
on Head Start, increasing the minimum wage, reauthorizing and
increasing funding for S-CHIP, increasing funding for children with
disabilities, job training, Medicaid funding, helping youth pay for
college, and tax-relief for low-income families with children. Based
on their votes on these issues, the Children’s Defense Fund ranked 143
congressmembers as ‘the worst” for children. Of the 143 worst
legislators, 100% are pro-life.

The long-established, and long-dominant pro-life complex speaks out of
both sides of its mouth, praising crisis pregnancy centers and yet
disparaging the social services upon which they rely. In the upcoming
months, the Obama administration will be revealing its common ground
agenda and one part of it promises to be supports for pregnant women.
It is just the sort of agenda designed to appeal to a nascent
pragmatic and moderate pro-life movement. Let’s hope this rising voice
of reason can lead the crisis pregnancy center movement to support an
administration plan to help struggling families and indigent pregnant
women.  Praise for CPCs can’t come packaged with attacks on the very
supports they rely upon. It not only defeats common ground; it defeats
reason.

Joseph Schiedler, president of the Pro-life Action League, wrote an
op-ed in USA Today claiming pro-lifers who embark on the search for
common ground betray the pro-life cause and, in making his case,
reveals the classic characteristics of pro-life schizophrenia. He
writes,

“There is no evidence that increasing social programs — such as
low-cost health care and day care, college grants and maternity homes
— will impact a woman's abortion decision. It is rare in our
experience to find a woman who says the reason she is choosing
abortion is that she doesn't have day care, or that she'd rather go to
college…More than 3,000 pregnancy centers in the U.S. are ready to
help a woman with material needs, emotional support, counseling and
medical care. Anyone who wants to stop abortion should promote these
centers.”

Once we begin to till the soil of common ground, these contradictions
and inconsistencies will become clearer. It is then that pragmatic
pro-lifers may realize there will be unlikely partners along the path
to genuine pro-life victories.

]]> The Splintering of the Pro-Life Movement http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/07/28/the-breakup-prolife-movement 2009-07-28T13:00:00-04:00 2009-07-28T14:03:06-04:00 Cristina Page Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) is, in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and, because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception -- primarily because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thereby abortion. And yet because of this, Ryan no longer qualifies as "pro-life." He was recently banished from the board of a national pro-life group he served on for four years. Ryan, in return, has turned vocal. He's leading the call for common ground and pragmatism, and is rallying the no longer silent majority of pro-lifers who support contraception. And he is provocatively trying to fight what he views as an unrepresentative slice of pro-lifers, those who can't bring themselves to support contraception. "The new fault line," says Ryan, "is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: "are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so."

Ryan is committed to preventing abortion so much so that he, unlike every other pro-life legislator in Congress, spent the last few years working to identify the policies proven to reduce the need for abortion. This work, which he undertook with The Third Way, a center-left think tank, resulted in the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." It's also called the Ryan-DeLauro bill, named for him and his co-sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT.) As thanks for his outspoken leadership in trying to make abortion less prevalent, Congressman Ryan was removed from the board of Democrats for Life of America, and with it, disowned by the pro-life movement at large. Pro-life publications have taken to qualifying his pro-life status as "allegedly" pro-life or referring to him as someone "who claims to be" pro-life. Because of his support of prevention in 2007-2008 congressional session, Ryan received a "0" rating from National Right to Life Committee. According to the pro-life establishment's new standards, his support for prevention means he no longer qualifies as "pro-life." And that means very few pro-life Americans will either.

It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there's not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As Congressman Ryan explained, "I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they're on the fringe of this debate." Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.

Ryan's legislation increases funding for contraception, expands supports for poor women who wish to carry to term, backs comprehensive sex ed programs that have been proven to work, and creates more incentives for adoptive families. He was joined by many prominent pro-life individuals including, Dr. Frank S. Page, Rev. Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis, and many pro-choice groups including Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Not one leading pro-life group signed onto the bill.

Lucky for Congressman Ryan, his support for contraception places him in a good position with pro-life voters. He is a pioneer in this rich common ground frontier. The vast majority of pro-life Americans, 80%, support contraception. Even among Catholics, followers of the only religion to oppose artificial contraception, 90% support contraception. Of evangelicals, including the most vehemently anti-abortion, the born-again, only 28% support abortion rights, yet 88% support contraception. Indeed, among all religious groups, support for contraception is off the charts: 94% of Baptists, 99% of Presbyterians, 95% of Methodists, 95% of Lutherans, 97% of Jews want greater access to contraception. And have you ever seen a poll to report 100% support for anything? You can count on the easy-going Episcopalians for that unanimous support for contraception. (Support for puppies and goodness score lower.) Even a cozy majority, 70%, of Republican and Independent voters are strong supporters of expanding access to contraception. What percentage of these voters supports the pro-life establishment's agenda to restrict access to contraception? 2%.

Pro-life Americans favor expanding access to contraception because of the undeniable pro-life results. Unintended pregnancy is the root cause of abortion. We know, when used properly, contraception works. Two thirds of American women on contraception are using it correctly. And from this group comes 5% of the nation's unintended pregnancies. Compare this to the 16% of women who are sexually active, at risk of getting pregnant and not using any form of contraception. That group, though much smaller, represents 52% of nation's unintended pregnancies. Then there's the 19% of women who are using contraception but incorrectly or inconsistently; from that group comes 43% of unintended pregnancies. The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple, address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception. (Article continues below graphic.)

2009-07-28-guttmacherslide.jpg
1. Gold RB et al., Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System, New York: Guttmacher Institute 2009, Figure 1.2.

To his credit, Congressman Ryan did his best to try to convince pro-life groups of this. He explained, "It was really frustrating to try to convince people that just didn't want to hear it. I went to the Democrats for Life of America's national board meeting that they had in DC a few years back and there were 50 board members or so and I gave them my pitch: If you're really for reducing abortions you've gotta be for contraception. I gave them all the statistics on unintended pregnancy and that most abortions take place for women within 200% of poverty and all this stuff and it just didn't resonate with them at all and so we had this stark disagreement and I got the boot."

The anti-contraception minority, which represents just 20% of pro-lifers, has disproportionate influence and, with it, hopes to derail common ground efforts the public has longed for. It's time for the disagreement over contraception to be addressed by the pro-life community at large. We will have no chance of making a real impact on unintended pregnancy and abortion rates without dramatic informed strategies on prevention. The pro-life public must demand accountability and representation for their pro-contraception values. Considering that 80% of pro-life Americans support contraception, isn't it time to establish at least one pro-life organization in support of it too?

Congressman Ryan thought that would be a great idea. He predicted such a group would expose those who really aren't interested in reducing the need for abortion. "We have an opportunity here to solve this problem and give pro-life members of Congress and pro-life legislators  a common sense approach to this and boy does it marginalize those people who have really beat the drum on the pro-life issue and have not provided any solution to it."

]]> Extreme Facebook Friends http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/16/extreme-facebook-friends 2009-06-17T09:00:00-04:00 2009-06-17T00:49:55-04:00 Cristina Page

Can you imagine how much greater the campaign scandal would have been if Bill Ayers, the former radical bomber who was linked to Barack Obama, and Obama were Facebook friends? That, no doubt, would have been considered evidence of a relationship, a sign of intimacy even. Of course, they weren't Facebook friends because that wasn't kind of relationship they had. But isn't it interesting that at least one leading anti-abortion activist who claims to be against the kind of violence that recently took the life of Dr. George Tiller is Facebook friends with some of the most virulently pro-violence anti-abortion crusaders that exist?

When PBS asked me to debate Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, I did a little research on him. I discovered his Facebook page and with it questions about those he consorts with, at least online, and consequently, questions about his sincerity. Newman has been in the news more than most anti-abortion leaders these days because his organization has been ensnared in the murder of Dr. Tiller, an abortion provider. Seven years ago, the group moved its headquarters to Wichita--to focus exclusively on protesting Tiller, his employees and his patients. In the days and weeks before the murder, alleged assassin Scott Roeder was in regular touch with Newman's second in command at Operation Rescue (who herself spent nearly two years in jail for conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic). A post-it note with her name and phone number was stuck to the dashboard of the Roeder's get-away car.

After the shooting, Operation Rescue was one of the first organizations out with a statement condemning and distancing itself from the act. The statement, released within a couple of hours after the murder, read,

"We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning... Operation Rescue has diligently and successfully worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see to it that abortionists around the nation are brought to justice. Without due process, there can be no justice."

Newman has continued to make strong statements against violence. Most recently, in our PBS online debate, Newman claimed the murder of Dr. Tiller, "was not justice, but vigilantism, which must be abhorred by a society that embraces the rule of law over anarchy."

But, it appears that Newman feels friendly enough towards the supporters of just such vigilantism to make them his Facebook friends. He may want to officially distance himself and his organization from violence against providers, but he doesn't want to go as far as to stop socially networking with individuals who endorse it. Of the twenty people that Wikipedia lists as most associated with the Army of God, described as "an extremist anti-abortion organization that sanctions the use of force to combat abortion in the United States," Newman is Facebook friends with three. (Keep in mind, of the other 17 listed, three are currently in jail for killing abortion providers, and one is incarcerated for attempted murder.)

Dan Holman is one such friend. Holman told CNN he 'cheered" when he learned of the murder of Dr. Tiller. Holman, of Missionaries to the Pre-born, has long supported violence against abortion providers. He wrote on the website Army of God, "Those who object to the use of force to protect pre-born children do no truly believe in their humanity and worth!" He continued,

"To condemn the use of force to protect unborn children is a tacit admission that their lives are not worth defending. It is to say that that some have more of a Right to Life than others. It is a frank admission that pre-born children are somehow sub-human. If they truly believe the life of the unborn is worth less than the life of the abortionist than why defend the babies at all?"

About Paul Hill, who murdered abortion provider Dr. John Bayard Britton and James H. Barrett, a volunteer clinic escort, Holman seemed to lament that there are no suicide bombers in the anti-abortion cause. He writes,

"Most of us are not as courageous as Paul Hill. There are no Christian suicide bombers blowing up abortion clinics. We need to confess and acknowledge our lack of love toward God and the pre-born. It is wrong to vilify the courageous acts of Paul Hill to put our own weakness and cowardice in a better light."

Another Facebook friend Newman shares status updates with is Neal Horsley. The Guardian UK interviewed Horsley after the murder of Dr. Tiller. Horsley states,


"The thing about Tiller's assassination that was really appropriate is that they killed him in church. While he was there collecting the money, counting the money, his blood poured in to those thick carpets in that church. That was a fitting send off."

Matthew Trewhella, the third of Newman's pro-violence-against-providers Facebook friends, is a signatory of the infamous letter supporting the murders of abortion providers and calling for all charges be dropped against Michael Griffin, the assassin of Dr. David Gunn. The letter read,

"We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him."

Newman, if he wishes to be taken seriously as an anti-abortion leader who is opposed to violence should, as a first step, break all ties with the small band of anti-abortion figures who cheer on murderers. You don't need a PR genius to tell you that. As I suggest to him in the debate, "You, more than anyone are poised to help prevent future acts of violence by alienating and condemning these forces or by helping to try to rehabilitate these extremists. Otherwise, all the anti-violence talk is simply meaningless." Rather than take this simple step, Newman has offered to buy Tiller's clinic to run operations out of, just the kind of victory lap that will be celebrated by his violent friends.

My PBS online debate with Troy Newman is here. They ask you to vote on who won. Troy has got the anti-abortion blogs driving his supporters to the site to vote which, at the time of this posting, seems to be working in his favor. Even though the voting doesn't end until Thursday, he's already claiming victory. Please take a look at the debate and vote!

]]> Higher Ground http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/06/16/higher-ground 2009-06-16T09:00:00-04:00 2009-06-17T14:19:38-04:00 Cristina Page The best answer to Dr. Tiller's murder is to build a national conversation focused on progress, a national dialogue on common ground. We invite you to enter into this experimental discussion knowing that we'll make mistakes but, above all, that it is worth pursuing. ]]>

The murder, just two weeks ago, of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller has deeply wounded and enraged the pro-choice community while also, some would argue, providing it with further reason to mistrust pro-life activists. Perhaps a different kind of wound has been inflicted on the pro-life side, and in particular on those moderates who dislike abortion, but don't tolerate violence, which includes most of the pro-life movement and public. Now they are sometimes treated as if they, too, are extremists.     

And so, in the aftermath of this senseless attack we risk losing something else dear, the momentum of the growing common ground movement; the search for a different, more constructive way forward in the abortion debate. Shortly before Dr. Tiller's murder, President Obama had just begun to usher this movement through the White House doors. His appointees had started calling together leaders from both sides to sit at the same table. His argument has been that the two sides can disagree sharply on a fundamental issue and yet still find areas of agreement on which they can work together.

The brutal murder of Dr. Tiller threatens to poison the nascent dialogue Obama initiated. More pervasively, it threatens to make cynicism about another's motives acceptable even rational. After such a heinous act it is easy to grow remote, to give up on efforts of understanding, to believe the worst of one another.  The violence perpetrated against Dr. Tiller is an attack on common ground, too, whether intended or not.

But, especially in the aftermath of the murder, a common ground movement must persist, and grow stronger. If not, we surrender reasoned and civil debate at gunpoint. If we retreat to our respective corners, we cede control of the dialogue to extremists, and with it any hope for a better and a different, more constructive way of reconciling, and living with differences.

Obama is the first President to actually take steps to bring some diplomacy to this national conflict and invite us, together, to dream up a better process. We must take up the invitation. We need common ground more than ever. Improving the national dialogue is one way to prevent future acts of violence.

There are many people on both ends of this issue who are justifiably critical and suspicious of common ground; they suspect these are code words for concession and compromise on deeply held and long-fought-for convictions.

So let's be clear. Common ground isn't a panacea, and isn't supposed to be. Signing on to this experiment, and it is an experiment, doesn't mean we will stop working to protect legal abortion or overturn it, depending on where we stand.  And yet, even if we will not resolve our fundamental disagreement, we should agree on ways to prevent unintended pregnancy and help reduce the need for women and girls to have to make the, often difficult, decisions that accompany it.

In doing so, we are not searching for compromise. It's not an attempt to find the lowest common denominator. But as the organization The Search for Common Ground writes, an effort to locate a " 'highest common denominator.' Not having two sides meet in the middle, but having them identify something together that they can aspire to and are willing to work towards."

This will seem a too-lofty aspiration to some.  And I've been told that. But I think of the last time I saw Dr. Tiller, a month ago at the National Abortion Federation conference. He and about 120 providers and clinic staff came to a panel I helped organize on making adoption a more accessible choice for women confronting unintended pregnancy. Our session was wrapping up when Dr. Tiller rose and addressed the audience of abortion providers, saying "If you have not helped a woman place a baby for adoption, I encourage you to. It's the most powerful thing. It's just the most powerful thing. It's the most powerful thing." He went on to explain that several times he had patients who were too far along in their pregnancy to terminate but were unable to parent. He and his family took them in, provided them a home until the time of delivery. He said that helping these women come to terms with placing a child for adoption, then delivering their babies and helping them through to placement were some of the most emotional and, clearly, among the satisfying, experiences he had as a provider. He will always be identified with the abortion services he provided. To me, it seemed that Dr. Tiller was urging people to expand their own experiences and their own perspectives of the pro-choice movement. After hearing his impassioned speech about adoption, I wondered if reasonable pro-lifers and Dr. Tiller would have discovered some rich areas of common ground.

The best answer to this hateful murder is to build a national conversation focused on progress, a national dialogue on common ground.

We are eager to get the discussion started. We want to hear your ideas and invite you to submit your common ground proposals, perspectives and solutions for publication on the site. We hope that you will see in your participation the chance to move forward the common ground conversation. To the extent we can, we expect that discussions will be entered into respectfully and even optimistically. We understand that we will be making it up as we go along and ask the indulgence of participants as we inevitably commit blunders. These are new attempts and we expect there to be some false starts and missteps. We believe though that it is worth persisting. 

This is an experiment that we know may not work. But, as President Obama advised, the only way it can is if we come to the conversation with "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words." If reasonable people from each side bring even a sliver of the passion to the search for common ground that they have dedicated for their cause, we can be hopeful about the possibilities.

]]> The New Pro-Lifer http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/06/05/the-new-prolifer 2009-06-05T20:52:54-04:00 2009-06-16T02:10:09-04:00 Cristina Page In our pain, anger and profound sadness over the murder of Dr. Tiller, pro-choice people risk losing an opportunity to see a better day as a country and a movement. In the wake of our loss, it is tempting to continue to categorize in one fixed way all who oppose abortion. To do so would be easy but also foolish. We must admit and accept that not all who are opposed to abortion are the same.  Especially since a new movement of pro-lifers has extended a hand in search of a better way.

Yesterday offered a unique opportunity to make this distinction. Alexia Kelley, co-founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Each of the eleven federal agencies has an Office for Faith-based and Community Partnerships that reports to the White House Office of Faith-based Initiatives. Kelley has been appointed as the liaison for HHS.

Moments after the announcement, John O'Brien, president of the pro-choice group Catholics for Choice, released a statement calling the Kelley appointment "a defeat for reason and logic." He continued,

"The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that," but "to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion... really beggars belief."

HHS has been called "ground zero in the culture wars" for good reason. Its policies strike at the heart of our most heated social disagreements, particularly those between pro-choice and pro-life groups. HHS oversees the FDA, which approves new contraceptive and abortion methods; the CDC, which promotes disease prevention initiatives on STDs including HIV; and Title X, the nation's contraception program for the poor, among others. One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration was the influence it granted the anti-abortion, anti-contraception movement on HHS policy and functions.

O'Brien's complaint is that the choice of Kelley, given her previous role overseeing a Catholic, anti-abortion organization, puts important social policies in danger of being hijacked by those same Bushian forces. But Kelley is not the Bush-styled pro-lifer of yore. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which Kelley founded, is a progressive organization that has also played a primary role in instigating a nationwide discussion of common ground on abortion. Her group has championed policies aimed at preventing the need for abortion, policies that have been identified as those pro-choice people can support too. It would be a mistake to group Kelley among anti-abortion operatives who snub opportunities to improve the relationship between pro-choice and pro-life communities, and who refuse to do anything to reduce the need for abortion. Her group has worked for policies that can reduce the need for abortion, work that has offended many hard-line anti-choice groups and individuals. To date, she has dedicated her career to finding shared solutions and minimizing this debilitating national conflict.

In November of 2008, Kelley's group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, released its study, "Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors," which found that:

"Analysis of nationwide data suggests that the economic status of pregnant women factors prominently into their abortion decision. Public policies that provide assistance and support to low-income families are rarely framed as ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. However, the findings from this study suggest that a two standard deviation increase in economic assistance to low-income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate in the 1990s. Across the entire United States, this translates into roughly 200,000 fewer abortions. Further, higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 21% lower abortion rate; and lower poverty rates were correlated with 10% reduction in the abortion rate."

The report concluded:

"Elected officials can utilize effective and appropriate socioeconomic public policies to reduce abortions. These include: promoting policies that increase male employment; lower the poverty rate; provide funding for child care for working women; and increase economic assistance to low-income families. Legislation aimed at these goals can effectively reduce abortion in America."

This is a revolutionary leap in pro-life thought, a dramatic break from the 36-year-long drumbeat by the right-wing anti-abortion movement; that segment has single-mindedly focused on restricting and illegalizing abortion. In fact, the Catholics in Alliance report admits:

Our analysis finds that state laws regulating abortion had little systematic impact on the abortion rate in the 1990s. The one exception may be Medicaid funding. Our analysis consistently finds that Medicaid funding for abortions increases the abortion rate - a finding consistent with earlier research - though this effect is never statistically significant. If Medicaid funding does in fact increase the abortion rate, this result is nonetheless consistent with the main the implications of our study suggesting that the abortion rate is sensitive to economic factors.

Kelley is a new style pro-lifer, one who believes a progressive agenda will produce pro-life results. In January 2009, she wrote in an op-ed published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Voters are looking for a new path forward. The question is, do we have the political and moral will to make it happen? People of faith have a particular responsibility to both collaborate with and challenge the new administration. It's long past time for all of us to move from rhetoric and division to results.

Make no mistake, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is a Catholic organization that accepts the Church's position on abortion and contraception. But under Kelley's leadership, its efforts were spent exploring an array of policies that succeed at reducing the need for abortion. The organization has taken a notably passive role towards the church's dictates. It has not worked to restrict abortion or make contraception less available, approaches most other anti-abortion and Catholic groups focus on exclusively.

But unlike some of the loudest voices in that movement, she believes the solution rests at the end of a new path that can be entered together. Even if some way along that path we revisit conflicting convictions. The White House has indicated that HHS will be the department that will enact many of the common ground policies that the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, working with the White House Council on Women and Girls, is currently helping to identify. And while Kelley's new focus is not exclusively on reducing the need for abortion - the Office of Faith-based Initiatives is also focused on poverty reduction, health care reform, and encouraging responsible fatherhood - Kelley will help shepherd, not set, the White House's common ground agenda on abortion through HHS.

It's fitting that, as someone who helped spark the common ground effort, she will now help see it through to safety. Pro-choice people need to improve the national dialogue on the abortion issue. We can lower the vitriol. We can expose the anti-abortion groups that oppose all the proven ways to reduce the need for abortion. We must isolate those that only stoke the coals of hatred in this conflict and, especially those who create the inflamed environment that inspired Dr. Tiller's murderer. The vast majority of self-described "pro-life" Americans abhor the violence, want to move past the conflict and have both sides work together to find common ground. The American pro-life public has longed for leaders like Kelley and, the truth is, so have we.

]]> The Murder of Dr. George Tiller, A Foreshadowing http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/05/31/the-murder-dr-george-tiller-a-foreshadowing 2009-05-31T21:59:29-04:00 2009-06-01T09:34:30-04:00 Cristina Page For those who would like to think today's murder in church of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, is an isolated incident: here's the horrifying news: You are wrong. The pattern is clear and frightening.

In March 1993, three months into the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.

Today's assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes five months into the term of our second pro-choice president. For anyone who would like to believe that this is a statistical anomaly, a coincidence that doesn't portend anything, again, you are wrong.

During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were six abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers (one of these attempts was on Dr. Tiller who was shot in both arms.) There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.

And so the execution of Tiller, 67, is not only tragic but ominous. He was born into an era when being an abortion provider meant saving women's lives. And the cold-blooded murder in church and in front of his wife of this stalwart defender of women rights and beloved physician, comes as a message for others, as well as tragic deja vu.

Battered women are at greatest danger of being killed by their abusers when they are most strong--that is, when they muster the courage to leave. The same phenomenon may be true in the abusive political abortion debate. The pro-choice movement, specifically our abortion providers, are in the greatest danger of violence when we take power. When the anti-abortion movement loses power, their most extreme elements appear to move to the fore and take control. The murder of Dr. Tiller suggests that violence against abortion providers may be far more linked to the power, or lack thereof, anti-abortion groups have politically than to laws designed to increase penalties against such acts.

History has another disturbing lesson for us. The escalation of anti-abortion rhetoric plays a direct role in instigating violence. When anti-abortion groups ratchet up the rhetoric, they know exactly what they're doing and the results it will have. Even if they maintain deniability, as Operation Rescue recently did saying, in effect, we wanted Tiller gone, but didn't want him murdered, they have inflamed the rhetoric. And suddenly people Like Dr. Tiller's murderer become inspired. On this issue, history is instructive.

Eleanor Bader, author of Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism, in an article in March for RH Reality Check about clinics bracing for an uptick in violence after the election of Obama wrote, "immediately after Obama's election, Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee, called him a "hardcore pro-abortion president." The American Life League dubbed him "one of the most radical pro-abortion politicians ever," and Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life warned that Obama will "force Americans to pay for the killing of innocents." Americans United for Life, the Family Research Council and Operation Save America quickly joined the chorus."

Bader interviewed clinic staff -- many seeing a direct relationship between the pro-choice victory in November and increased aggression against them and their patients. Claire Keyes, of Allegheny Reproductive Health in Pittsburgh, explained,

"Right after the election we saw a small upsurge in anti-abortion activity. But since the inauguration, things have gotten measurably worse. There's been an increase in picketing by students from Franciscan University in Ohio. On Saturdays there are 60-plus protesters and there's been an increase in screaming and aggression. We don't have a parking lot so people park on the street. The antis have surrounded cars, trapping the women inside, and in several cases the antis jumped into vehicles and touched or grabbed at them. The police were called but so far they don't seem to be responding appropriately." Bader also quotes Elizabeth Barnes, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Women's Center, who explained, "When the pendulum swung in the direction of protecting women's rights, we expected something. The way the antis are reacting has changed, they're taking more liberties, pressing the boundaries of legal, civil protest."

Many in the pro-choice movement believed that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law, passed in 1994 in response to Gunn's murder, was responsible for reigning in violence against abortion providers. Clearly that is not the case. Based on statistics on violence against abortion providers compiled by the National Abortion Federation, even after the passage of FACE in 1994, there was still considerable violence and threats against clinic personnel, including six murders. As appears clear, the pro-choice movement has looked through rose-colored glasses, assuming or hoping that legalities can restrain terrorists.
In fact, it didn't abate after FACE, as we've seen. It was not until a comforting anti-abortion president did they calm down and stop the murder, bombing and harassment spree.

As a result of Bush's policies, recent reportings from clinics suggest that we may be seeing a surge in abortions. That has failed to inspire introspection from anti-abortion groups. That Clinton presided over the most dramatic decline in abortion rates in the recorded history of our country left them unmoved. That Obama has assigned his senior most staff to the task of finding ways to reduce the need for abortion has not protected clinics nor providers nor Obama. Holder and his Justice Department should take note of the chatter and move aggressively against this form of domestic terrorism. The hate-filled rhetoric against Obama from the anti-abortion movement is at unprecedented levels, even for this reflexively inflammatory group. They refer to him as the "Most Pro-Abortion President Ever" ignoring the fact that he is the first to extend an olive branch in hopes that together we can make abortion more rare.

Anti-abortion groups will put out carefully worded press statements condemning the murder of Dr. Tiller, as became routine for them during the Clinton years. But unless the rhetoric they choose from now on becomes careful too--they may be the enablers of murder and terror. 

]]> Why We Need Bristol (and Levi) http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/05/08/why-we-need-bristol-and-levi 2009-05-08T10:39:10-04:00 2009-05-10T21:26:50-04:00 Cristina Page In her own roundabout way, Bristol Palin is voicing the core message of comprehensive sex ed: there’s no better protection against pregnancy and disease than abstinence, but teens those that are having sex need to use to protection. ]]> This week, appearing in a Town Hall-styled press event, Bristol Palin debuted as a teen “ambassador” for the Candie's Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Candie's shoe brand that raises awareness of the teen pregnancy crisis. It was an unsteady first step, which pleased those cynical about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s politically expedient version of her daughter’s pregnancy: Remember? Bristol and boyfriend Levi are in love and will marry soon after the election. Bristol and Levi are now broken up and seem to be doing much of their communicating, they even seem to subtly be negotiating custody/visitation arrangements for their son Tripp, on prime time TV. Now that no one any longer has to pretend that the pre-election fictions are true, there is a valuable lesson to learn. And, oddly, the quiet girl thrust into the public spotlight as a result of a most private of mishap might just help teach it. That is if Levi is invited along.

On the morning of the Town Hall appearance, Bristol also appeared on ABC and NBC, broadcasting maddeningly mixed messages about teen pregnancy prevention on the nation’s most widely watched news shows. She seemed to emphasize the abstinence-only approach to pregnancy prevention on Good Morning America (“It’s important for me to get involved just to advocate and promote abstinence and send my message out…abstinence is a hard choice but it’s the safest choice and the best choice”) only to appear on the Today show minutes later to admit that abstinence can be unrealistic for some teens and they should use contraception (“If you’re going to have sex I think you should have safe sex.”)

I recognize I’m trained to listen for nuances in the sex ed debate. I’m also twice Bristol’s age. And so it’s easy for me to slip into the Simon Cowell role. No, she’s not polished. Hers is a kind of witness-cross-examined-style speech—short statements which leave you wondering what she isn’t saying. I’m not even sure Bristol realizes that she’s been contradicting herself.

So at first listen, her message sounds way off-key. On a second closer listen though, I started to hear something else. It sounded more like a new, albeit unrehearsed and out-of-the-studio, style. In truth, if her televised appearances this week are cobbled together, there is definitely a message worth listening to.  Even comprehensive sex ed proponents should be fine with what she’s actually saying. People who favor comprehensive sex ed have reflexively shunned her. She has seemed at times brainwashed by the group which still believes abstinence is the only form of contraception a teenager needs to know. But in her roundabout way, Bristol is in fact voicing the core message of comprehensive sex ed which is: there’s no better protection against pregnancy and disease than abstinence, teens should postpone becoming sexually active, but those that are having sex need to use to protection.
But prevention is not Bristol’s area of expertise. (That’s for sure.) Bristol is much more interested in warning teens about premature parenthood than putting herself forth as an expert on teen pregnancy prevention. That, I think, is part of the reason why she sounds confused when discussing what teens should or should not be doing. Being a teen mom is her new expertise. This is where she becomes clear: she wants to use her experience to help other teens avoid the same fate. She explains, “If I can prevent even one girl from getting pregnant, I will feel a sense of accomplishment.”

It’s on this point where Bristol and the Candie's Foundation (which supports both abstinence and safe sex approaches) have a truly shared perspective, one that gets overlooked by the traditional teen pregnancy prevention messengers. Bristol’s and Candies’ shared message to teens is: you don’t want to become a teen parent.

The traditional pregnancy prevention messages have often missed this. They have assumed teens don’t need convincing on that issue. They assumed teens just need to know how not to get pregnant. But statistics provided by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy indicate that about one in five pregnant teens was trying to conceive. For this demographic, messages about abstinence and/or contraception are useless.

And so Bristol may be reaching an emerging demographic. Candies may have found a powerful messenger in her. And let’s give her credit, hers is possibly the most difficult of messages to impart. She loves her baby, Tripp is a blessing in her life, though if she could have done it over she would definitely have waited to become a parent—it would have been better for her and her son. There are difficult emotional acrobatics here, seeming contradictions that, to her credit, she manages to present in a way that feels honest and understandable.

But there is one thing very important missing from the Candies campaign. Lucky for them, the opportunity to fix that is standing right before their eyes. What their campaign needs is Levi Johnston. And Levi has something to say. Few have noticed that Levi has been trying to get in on this important conversation. It may seem like he is just trying to spoil Bristol’s day now that he is persona non grata in the Palin household. Whenever Bristol is backed into pushing abstinence, Levi pops up with a wry smile and a disclaimer: “It’s unrealistic.” Levi has been taking to the airwaves himself. In fact, on the morning of the Town Hall he got himself on the Early Show, in an unofficial capacity, to discuss their unplanned pregnancy. He quite diplomatically praised Bristol for encouraging teens to abstain but, based on his first-hand experience, he encouraged consistent condom use.


Watch CBS Videos Online
What this national conversation desperately needs is for teen boys, like Levi, to be involved. How can we expect them to take responsible steps to prevent teen pregnancy if we act as if they play no part? Levi brings with him a great chance to make boys the stakeholders they inevitably are. He also offers a unique perspective on the difficulties of being a teen father, one that will resonate with boys in a way Bristol’s point of view will not. It’s also worth noting that Levi is as sought-out by the media as Bristol. He has the same humble, and winning, way of delivering a simple message. He can balance out Bristol’s warnings about Saturday nights changing diapers with a pragmatic strategy for avoiding that fate. And, let’s not forget, he needs a job. He’s also handsome enough (New York Magazine calls Levi, a hockey player, “sex on skates”) to get girls to pay attention to his pro-protection message.

These two are never gonna be slick, media trained, celebri-teens with talking points and agents (Bristol’s entourage in New York was her aunt, baby and Dad.) No doubt, Candies is taking a risk with Bristol and would extend that risk even further by giving Levi an equal voice in the discussion. But with great risk comes the possibility for great gains too. The United States is suffering from a teen pregnancy scourge—we have the highest teen birth rate of any other developed country, and by a long shot. Teen parents are less likely to complete the education necessary to qualify for a well-paying job -- in fact, parenthood is the leading cause of school drop out among teen girls. College then becomes the remotest of possibilities. Less than two percent of mothers who have children before age 18 complete college by the age of 30.

Too often heartbreaking sacrifices are also foisted on the children of teen parents. These children are more likely to be born prematurely at low birthweight compared to children of older mothers, which raises the probability of infant death and disease, mental retardation, and mental illness. Children of teens are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to complete high school. The children of teens also suffer higher rates of abuse and neglect (two times higher).

Teen parents and their children are not the only ones paying dearly. Premature parenting in the United States costs taxpayers (federal, state, and local) approximately $9.1 billion each year. Most of the costs are associated with services to address the negative consequences detailed above.

Bristol and Levi are bravely offering their intensely personal misstep up for others to learn from. They may be at odds with each other (another statistical likelihood they realized) but they are united in their message about the not-so-glamorous life of teen parents. ]]> The Prevention President: A Report Card http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/04/29/the-prevention-president-a-report-card 2009-04-30T08:00:00-04:00 2009-04-30T00:02:03-04:00 Cristina Page

For those in favor of women's rights, the first 100 days of the Obama administration has been like a honeymoon. We've continually been reminded why we fell in love in the first place. Coming off an eight-year abusive relationship (to put it mildly), none of Obama's kindnesses are lost on us. He seems to be the kind of guy who does what he says he's going to do, another relief. And his gifts have not just been for the pro-choice movement either. Nearly all of Obama's actions on reproductive rights to date have focused on preventing the need for abortion, one of his "common ground" issues. And while he's won no fans in traditional pro-life groups, it's an approach the majority of pro-life Americans want.

Here's a report card of the Obama administration's work on reproductive rights in the first hundred days.

International:

Obama's first gift was global. In his first month in office, with a stroke of his pen, Obama lifted the Global Gag Rule, a Reagan-era policy that withheld funding from any group that referred a woman for an abortion, most of which were family planning providers.

Lifting the funding ban will restore these NGO's access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception and result in dramatic improvements in women's health for those living in the most desperate regions on earth. Despite anti-abortion operatives' claims, the policy change will not increase abortion rates since the funding was never used to provide abortion services in the first place. In fact, we expect just the opposite. Johns Hopkins researchers estimate that every million dollars spent on contraceptive care prevents 150,000 abortions, 360,000 unintended pregnancies, 11,000 infant deaths and 800 maternal deaths .

The Stimulus Package:

There was, to continue the honeymoon metaphor, our first lover's quarrel too. Obama quickly folded once the Republicans picked a fight over inclusion of a family planning provision in the stimulus package. In Obama's defense, passage of the package was too critical to hold up for a minor provision that could be included elsewhere. But the concession came easily, a little too easily. Why not stand up to the bullies who happened also to be lying to the American public about what the contraception provision was? Obama could have pointed out that, despite claims to the contrary, there was no $200 million budget line for contraception in the stimulus package. That figure represented the projected cost savings to the states if a simple administrative, non-budgetary proposal were adopted. It gets complicated, but sadly the unchallenged final message was "contraception has nothing to do with economic recovery." The last few months have certainly proven otherwise. There's been a surge of American's getting contraception, and long-acting methods at that. Clearly, pregnancy prevention has a lot to do with individual economic stability. It's also proven that Republicans are deeply out of touch with what struggling Americans need to protect themselves during tough times, as if we needed more evidence.

Appointments:

With the key positions that impact women's health and rights most, Obama has appointed wisely. Hillary Clinton overseeing foreign policy will impact women's health worldwide. She is the possibly the strongest pro-choice advocate we've ever had in government and there was no better display of her pro-choice backbone than an exchange she and anti-abortion/anti-contraception Rep. Chris Smith from NJ had last week.

Without question, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the most important federal agency for American women's health issues. That's one reason why the chief of staff to one of Bush's heads of HHS, Tommy Thompson, described it as "ground zero for the ideological wars in this country." HHS includes the FDA (approves new reproductive health drugs), the Title X program (nation's contraception program for the poor), the Office of Medicaid (pays for 1/3 of all US births and the largest health payer of contraception services for the low-income;) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (oversees STD prevention programs.) For this post Obama chose Governor Kathleen Sebelius who was confirmed yesterday. During her confirmation hearings, the anti-abortion movement, in true Rove form, attempted to portray the exceedingly moderate Sebelius as an extremist on abortion. Very little of what HHS does has to do with abortion rights, though, so the charge was not only false but irrelevant. Sebelius, through her role, is likely to make contraception more available, implement the most effective sex education programs, and focus on preventing the spread of STDs: all strategies the traditional anti-abortion establishment has historically opposed. Of course, it was better for them to say she's an abortion nut than a prevention nut.

Common Ground:

But not all pro-lifers were opposed to Sebelius' nominaton. One of the most revolutionary and inspiring events to emerge from the election of Obama's has been real common ground partners in a growing segment of the pro-life movement. These are people who while disagreeing on some fundamental issues have pledged to seek points of agreement with pro-choice activists. Catholics United is one such pro-life common ground group. Among many of their cutting edge campaigns was Catholics for Sebelius, which defended her nomination by arguing that her policies have led to dramatic declines in the unintended pregnancy and abortion in Kansas. Several other pro-life groups, like Pro-Life Pro-Obama and Realabortionsolutions.org, as well as a handful of pro-life leaders, have risen to answer Obama's common ground call. These groups and leaders believe that rather than focusing on banning abortion, which has never had a significant impact on abortion rates, Obama's prevention policies hold the greatest promise for those seeking tangible pro-life results.

Obama has committed his administration to finding common ground in the abortion conflict. He's assigned his Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to work with his Council on Women and Girls on the task. Last month, the White House hosted its first conference call of leaders on each side and presented a broad strokes common ground agenda. It's decidedly straightforward and hard to argue with from both pro-choice and pro-life perspectives. The focus will "look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion." Both sides of the abortion debate have much to gain from this common ground effort. If it results in any success, which is still no certainty, the American public, particularly women, and our political discourse will be the greatest beneficiaries.

Plan B:

One of the greatest examples of the abuses of the Bush administration was the very transparent derailing of the Plan B, emergency contraception (EC), over the counter application at the FDA. Bush appointed anti-contraception ideologues to the panel reviewing the application. The majority of the panel wound up recommending over-the counter access to EC for all women and the application had support from all women's and adolescent medical groups. Still the Bush FDA denied minors over the counter access to emergency contraception. This decision is held up as a one of the greatest examples of Bush's attacks on science and the administration's misuse of agencies for purely ideological aims. Obama has set about restoring confidence in our scientific agencies. One step in that direction was sending the Plan B decision back for review and demanding the agency base it's decision on over-the-counter access solely on scientific evidence. In the meantime, Obama directed the agency to establish immediate over-the-counter access for 17 year-old women to the highly effective contraceptive method.

Obama also restored affordable birth control for college-aged women. After Bush removed college health centers from discounted drug programs, contraceptive costs increased as much as 900% for college women. Obama signed legislation to restore access to affordable birth control for college-age women who, statistics show, are most in need of it: they're the demographic with the highest rate of unintended pregnancy, the highest rate of abortion, and little disposable income.

HHS Regulations

In the final days of the Bush administration, the Christian Right just about went looting. They tried to walk away with a regulation allowing healthcare workers' religious beliefs to override patient's medical decisions. One HHS regulation, which went into effect literally moments before Obama took office, was so broad and would cause such chaos in the medical establishment that even Bush's own EEOC came out against it. It would have allowed any healthcare worker for practically any "conscience-related" reason to deny a patient any type of medical care. The healthcare worker wouldn't have had to inform the employer beforehand of the care he or she objected to and couldn't be fired for refusing to provide the service. Patients did not have to be informed of the healthcare worker's objection or that they were being denied information about their medical options. In the service of protecting "conscience objectors," the regulation threw patient rights out a window. Since ample protection already exists in law for those who don't want to take part in abortion services, it was widely understood that the goal of the HHS regulations was to give cover to those who wish to obstruct women's access to contraception. Obama rescinded the HHS regulations.

At the end of the Bush administration and ever since, as a result of its mismanagement and commitment to proven-to-fail approaches, abortion and teen pregnancy rates have been spiking. Obama has, in the first 100 days, reversed course in favor of the policies that have proven, wherever tried, to result in dramatic declines in unintended pregnancy and abortion rates. It'd be wrong to say only pro-choice people have reason to rejoice from this stellar first hundred days.

]]> Proudly Part of the Problem http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/04/16/proudly-part-problem 2009-04-17T08:00:00-04:00 2009-04-17T11:03:06-04:00 Cristina Page Last week, a leading "pro-life" blogger Jill Stanek made a cameo appearance in the comments section of a blog of mine, "The Call for Common Ground on Abortion," on Huffington Post. My post basically reported on, and offered perspective about, a conference call the White House organized for pro-life and pro-choice groups. It took the opportunity to announce the administration's intent to explore common ground in the abortion conflict. In my post, I pointed out that it's clear Obama's team wants to make progress on an issue that has divided and damaged us as a country for too long. They had explained the areas they hoped could unite pro-choice and pro-life people: reducing unintended pregnancy, including teen pregnancy, making adoption a more accessible choice for women confronting unintended pregnancy, and supporting struggling families with wanted pregnancies. They want to move forward, and have set up a common sense framework to do so. It's hard to demean such earnest intent.

But many veteran leaders in the "pro-life" movement are immovably stuck in their positions. They appear deeply invested in rehashing the same, seemingly eternal arguments, in continuing what even to a staunch pro-choicer like myself seems like a tedious fight. The natural inclination of rational Americans pining for common ground, as most of both persuasions on the abortion issue are, might be to zone out the heckling. But listening to this increasingly out of the mainstream arguments by people like Jill Stanek helps to understand the reason we have suffered from intransigence for so long. Too many of the most committed people, and here, the pro-choice side is not immune, feel that anything the opponent agrees to must be suspect. Bloggers like Stanek, those speaking into the echo chamber, are apparently so invested in continuing the fight that they won't budge. One suspects their intransigence is based not just on morality, but self-interest as well. If the vitriol isn't high enough they worry their base might drift away.

Jill is the perfect example of the unbending culture warrior. The one committed to fanning the flames of the ethereal, abstract side of debate and belittling or ignoring the common sense, brick and mortar proposals for problem solving. Jill is no doubt a smart chick. Her posts are always engaging even for those of the pro-choice persuasion like myself. If only she used her abilities not to undermine common ground efforts. Obama's common ground pledge (and my piece about it) did not muster any interest in Jill in finding a solution. It did inspire her to return for the billionth time to the well-worn arguments. She writes,

"Cristina, the basic questions: Why care about reducing the need for abortion? What's wrong with it?"
I answered,
"Hi Jill, nice to hear from you. I think it's the same reason to reduce teen parenthood and to reduce the need to place a child for adoption. If any woman in one of those circumstances were to be asked, "if you could go back in time and avoid being in this predicament, would you?" nearly all would say yes. I think we should reduce teen parenthood and the need for adoption too. These are each often tremendously difficult choices that ideally no woman should have to face. Adoption, abortion, and parenthood are all the results of unintended pregnancy and I believe women should have access to each of these options legally and safely. But it's unintended pregnancy that's the real problem here. That's what we need to work to avoid.

"Sorry to not give you the "gotcha" moment you were looking for. For Huffpo readers, Jill Stanek is a leader in the anti-abortion movement and probably the most popular blogger on that side of the issue. Jill, here are my questions for you: Why are you opposed to preventing unintended pregnancy and access to contraception as one vehicle toward that end? Why do you pursue the outlawing of abortion even though it has failed to reduce abortion rates wherever it's been tried? Why not institute the policies that result in the lowest abortion rates on earth? So what if it's the most pro-choice countries that have the lowest abortion rates, aren't "pro-life" results what you're after?"
She replied,
"Christina, seriously, thanks for the kind words on my credentials.

But you didn't answer me. You may consider my question a "gotcha," but it's foundational. How can we devise solutions when we haven't defined the problem? What exactly is the problem with abortion? Why is it "a tremendously difficult choice[ ] that ideally no woman should have to face"?

"What is wrong with abortion? Is it or is it not morally neutral or even superior, as new Cambridge Episcopal Divinity School pro-abort President Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale tagged it - "a blessing" and "holy work"?"
I replied,
"Well, actually, if you read what I wrote again, you'll see I was referring to adoption and teen parenthood as "often tremendously difficult choices." Sure, abortion can be a difficult choice for some women too (though or some women it is accompanied by no grief, though, just relief) and studies show that the more religious a woman is the harder struggle she has with it. So possibly, it's the culture she's in that creates guilt with her decision.

"Regardless, my point is that all choices accompanying an unintended pregnancy can be (but aren't always) difficult, but that's no reason to outlaw any of them. Based on your logic, it's grief that is the measure of what the "right" decision is. Then a woman who suffers grief after placing a child for adoption made the wrong choice, an immoral choice, right? Why not ban adoption then? Why not tell her that the reason she's feeling bad is because she made the wrong decision, one that God does not condone? That would be a terrible thing to do with women choosing adoption, and it's a terrible thing to do to women choosing abortion too.

"I've attempted to answer your question twice. You have not answered my questions even once. Please do. Why can't we agree to try to help women avoid having to make these decisions in the first place? Tell me Jill, honestly, what do you think are the areas we can agree on? Because I think there's a bunch."

In the end, Jill never once attempts to answer any of my simple questions, which is typical. I've noticed this tactic used often by those pro-lifers who work in the movement. Whenever the discussion gets off ethereal principles and onto the problem solving, they revert back to airy lectures. They continue to want to talk about the morality of abortion and are desperate to change the subject when it's about solving what they consider a moral crisis. They are trapped in an endless argument over semantics (Jill is currently arguing that pro-lifers should demand we reduce the "number" of abortions rather than "the need for" abortion. Good luck with that debate.) They're the ones who have a problem with abortion. Why is the pro-choice camp the only side trying to come up with solutions, often successfully, to their problem? President Bush didn't promise to attempt to reduce abortion rates during his Presidency and, early indicators suggest, he lived up to that disinterest. The decline in abortion rates slowed during his administration, teen birth rates spiked, and the economic nightmare he left us in seems to already be causing an uptick in abortions. All that is traceable to Bush policies and mismanagement.

Meanwhile, the dramatic declines in abortion rates brought to us by President Clinton and the Obama administration's promise to deliver the same results elicit sneers and ire from the "pro-life" movement. (I put "pro-life" in quotes because you can't really be pro-life if your actions create more of the abortions you profess to hate.) Bill Clinton, if based on results alone, was the most pro-life president we've ever had and the pro-life movement hates him for it.

This is why the Obama team needs to look past the old-guard culture warriors. People like Jill Stanek approve of the rhetoric of the "culture of life" but are not interested in reducing the need for abortion. She's seems more interested in attracting eyeballs to her site. Looking for common ground solutions from operatives like her is like turning to Michael Vick for dog-training tips.

The common ground movement Obama is hoping to advance will come about because of people who want real solutions, whose livelihoods don't depend on the conflict continuing, people who believe we deserve a better national dialogue and better leadership on this issue. We've finally got an administration willing to moderate a productive discussion. It's time to get the hecklers out of room, and get on with the work.

]]> The Call for Common Ground http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/04/07/the-call-common-ground 2009-04-07T16:00:00-04:00 2009-04-07T15:14:16-04:00 Cristina Page Some historic moments are short and sweet. That was the case last Friday with a call the White House organized on common ground in the abortion conflict. In a never before attempted event, the Obama administration merged dozens of leaders from the pro-choice and pro-life movements onto one conference call line and, wisely, muted us.

The team to which Obama has assigned the task of shaping a civil discussion and exploring common cause within the abortion conflict enthusiastically laid out a profoundly sensible plan. Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, kicked off the call explaining that their goal is not to change minds on the dug-in issue of abortion. Rather, she explained, the intent is to focus on the areas in which, theoretically, both sides share a common interest. And there are many: preventing unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reducing the need for abortion, strengthening supports for struggling families with wanted pregnancies, making adoption an option as accessible as any other, and saving lives by improving maternal and child health.

Barnes introduced the team that will help recruit people to the common cause: Tina Tchen, Executive Director of the Council on Women and Girls (she is also Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House) and Rev. Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Tchen explained that they would take the next few months to meet with leaders on both sides to discuss various common ground proposals and to gather new ones. They will focus on projects that can be funded in the 2011 budget, as well as legislation and grassroots efforts that could be duplicated elsewhere.

The 15-minute call concluded with Barnes explaining that the President believes in common ground. This is the post-rant and, supposedly, post-culture war president. Common ground has become his way of framing his approach, a fundamentally optimistic view that if people of goodwill come together they can find ways to work together. Only the future will tell if that will be. But clearly the eminently rational Obama is betting that if reasonable people use reason they can get somewhere.

They promised to be in touch. The nasal-y conference call operator voice came on to signify the end of the call and the culture warriors retreated to their bunkers, awaiting further contact.

Certainly the surveys show that American public pines for the kind of common ground effort Obama seems to believe in. And in the brief but pointed call the No Drama Obama team seems to have figured out where to begin. It's put off limits the dogfight issues, like restrictions on abortion. The Obama team has chosen to narrow the scope. It's a call-your-bluff moment. You say you want to reduce unintended pregnancy? Well, then here's a common sense way to move forward. There has historically been deep resistance on the right to many of the approaches Obama favors, and even some in the pro-choice community, which has largely supported the Obama agenda, appear to wonder about the wisdom of making common cause with groups seen as part of the problem. The Obama team must have wondered whether it will find willing partners for what's meant to be a shared journey. Luckily, for the moment, the mute button was pushed.

And that gave the Obama team a chance to lay out its focused definition of common ground, a vague term which had understandably been open to wide interpretation. Last Friday, in its signature all-business style, the Obama team came to the call with a meaningful, common sense agenda. They're not planning to solve the abortion conflict, and they're not pretending to be miracle workers. But they are hoping to find that, with some good will, there are the solutions to such fundamental issues as unintended pregnancy about which both sides ought not to disagree.

]]> Vasectomies Spike as Economy Sours http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/03/27/vasectomies-spike-economy-sours 2009-03-30T08:00:00-04:00 2009-03-29T20:49:06-04:00 Cristina Page "Why are we suddenly having an explosion in guys asking for vasectomies?" This is a question Dr. Steven Jones' staff asks him a lot lately, the Cleveland Urologist told CNN. Dr. Marc Goldstein, a New York-based urologist in practice for over thirty years, told the network, "I have never seen anything like this. When things started to go south in the stock market, then the vasectomy consults went north." The folks over at vasectomy.com no doubt were pleased for snagging that most awesome domain name. Little did they know a bad economy would provide their payday; the number of appointment requests through their site spiked 30 percent in January.

It's not just men who are suddenly concerned about their family's future. Consumers are spending more money on all types of contraceptives, according to the Nielson Company. Indeed, the embrace of family planning appears to be a critical step in financial planning. Nielson said sales of over-the-counter contraceptives jumped a dazzling 10.2 percent in the first two months of the year. The company reports that, while other retail sales slip, condom sales jumped up 5% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 6% in January, compared with the same time periods last year. Sales of Essure, a non-invasive, irreversible birth control method for women were up also, 28% over last year's sales.

Planned Parenthood clinics, the leading provider of contraception in the country, also report increased traffic over the past several months, according to Tait Sye, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "There's no question we're seeing increased traffic at most clinics, and many clinics report an increase in new patients as well," Sye said. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa told the local TV news the number of women in the state asking for access to birth control is up nearly 40 percent.

So much for contraception being a non-sequitur in discussions about the economy. Just a couple of month ago, Congressional Republicans, fresh from their first meeting with Obama, stood snickering before the press about the inclusion of a family planning provision in the president's emergency economic plan. What does birth control have to do with the economy? they chided, suggesting Obama might be trying to sneak a liberal social program by them. Minority Leader Representative John Boehner protested, "Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats' spending plan has NOTHING (emphasis his) to do with fixing the economy and creating more American jobs. " It was lost on the Republicans, many of whom oppose contraception for ‘moral' reasons, that rational people facing hazardous economic times need to control the number of children they have to support. And, by the way, that kind of responsible behavior is good for the economy which can hardly afford the social programs to support families who can't make it on their own. (Republicans are supposedly for responsibility except...when they're not.)

Boehner might want to check in with that Joe the Plumber demographic who, if recent trends are any indicator, not only considers contraception a great form of protection against uncertain times but is opting for the permanent form at that. (And for any Joe without insurance that vasectomy will cost between $500-$1000, probably twice as much as his tax cut. The contraception provision in the stimulus package would have extended coverage for this kind of contraceptive and others to those above earning 200% above the federal poverty level. So Joe, when you lay out that stack of cash don't forget to thank Boehner who thinks your decision to prevent an unaffordable pregnancy is too silly to cover.)

The Salt Lake Tribune recently interviewed a local couple in their twenties who see pregnancy prevention as key to their family's survival. They have two kids, 2 years old and 3 months, and were attending a state insurance fair to sign up for health insurance. He works two part-time jobs and she stays at home caring for the kids. Money is a constant worry -- he foregoes medications to pay for diapers and the electric bill. She explained that they are being "way more careful" about preventing pregnancy. The couple is hoping to qualify for government insurance in order to get birth control. "I just worry if the economy is going to get worse. I would starve myself before my kids [go hungry]. What if it gets so bad I don't have food for them?" Cut to eye-rolling Congressional Republicans.

Family planning is nothing less than a foundation on which many Americans build sturdy, responsible lives. Regardless of political affiliation, that's exactly what many are struggling to do right now. Those who have lost their jobs and health insurance are in great need of family planning. They're also, alarmingly, the ones with the least access to it. Meanwhile Republicans openly mock attempts to include family planning as a part of the economic recovery, actively work to defund Planned Parenthood, promote policies that encourage health care workers to deny patients access to contraception, and defend programs that withhold basic information about contraception to sexually active teens. (Then they're baffled to find the number of teen parents spiked during the Bush years.)

Family planning is an American family value and, as national data indicate, something we rely on in our greatest times of need. Attacks on our right to plan our families shred the social safety net. The Republicans are welcome to titter and heckle the next time a proposal to support family planning crosses their desks. Doing so will only reveal how astoundingly out of touch they are from American's real lives and needs.

]]> A DeMinted Attack on College Women http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/03/06/a-deminted-attack-college-women 2009-03-06T17:08:22-05:00 2009-03-06T17:08:22-05:00 Cristina Page Anti-contraception Senator Jim DeMint moved this week to increase birth control prices as much as 900% for college women. You'd think the Senator, who professes to be against abortion, would want to make contraception as accessible as possible for women in college since they're the demographic with the highest rate of unintended pregnancy and the highest rate of abortion. College women typically don't have much income and are also disproportionately likely to be uninsured; it's not the pool of people you want to force to "splurge" if they want to use protection. "We do know that high fees act as a barrier to obtaining care. That is classically understood in campus health services," explained Claudia Covello, director at the University of California-Berkeley's health center, to Time magazine.

The DeMint move is just the latest, and we're talking by minutes, in a month of repeated attacks against access to contraception. Obama wants common ground, but the current Republican cabal wants to stomp its feet on the fringe. So routine now are the attacks on contraception that the anti-contraception crew will use any excuse, like the aunt who dolls up the house for every minor holiday. The anti-contraception team dresses up their attacks on birth control in whatever polemic is being celebrated that day even if, like that "Kiss Me I'm Irish" shirt worn by your aunt's chihuahua, the claim is not true at all.

When Prevention First legislation was introduced in the Senate it consisted of proposals that would improve access to contraception. And yet it was referred to by contraception opponents as an "abortion bailout." When the stimulus package included a simple budget-neutral provision to streamline state billing procedures for contraceptive services, the Family Research Council called it a "political payoff". Now, DeMint through an amendment hopes to remove the Affordable Birth Control Act, which requires no expenditure but simply reinstates college health centers and other safety net clinics back into the discounted drug pricing program. The polemic decoration DeMint uses is that lowering the cost of birth control for college age women is an "earmark" for Planned Parenthood.

The problem with birth control prices on college started where all modern problems begin, with the Bush administration. In 2005, Bush used the Federal Deficit Reduction Act to exclude college health centers and some safety net health clinics, including about a quarter of Planned Parenthoods, from discounted drug programs. And wouldn't you know it, the most common drug each of these health centers provide is contraceptives. When birth control prices starting soaring after the change, in some instances going from $5 to $50 for a month's supply, anti-contraception operatives played dumb. The Bush team claimed they did not intended for the law to remove college health centers and private birth control clinics from the list of those eligible for discount drug pricing.

Over that last few years when simple solutions were offered to remedy this "unintentional" act, like asking HHS to work out a simple correction and introducing legislation to reinstate the health centers into the discount drug program, it was more than a little suspicious that those pleading innocence were unwilling to back a remedy. In fact, the amount of effort the anti-contraception team has put into protecting this "unintentional" scale back in contraceptive access is telling. It appears some mistakes are really worth fighting for. In the most recent attempt to stop the "unintentional" act from being corrected, DeMint is now claiming that by reestablishing the prices discount for birth control these health centers will keep the cost-savings for themselves and charge women the same inflated prices. Maybe he is confusing college health centers with our banking system. The health centers are not known for predatory business practices. And if profit were a motive for the not-for profit Planned Parenthood someone might want to point out to its financial team that determining the price they charge for birth control based on a woman's ability to pay, as the organization does, is not the fastest route to the top of the capitalist pyramid.

The appropriations bill is being voted on today. Call your Senators today and tell them to vote against DeMint's Amendment 649.

]]> Catholic Extremists Swift-Boat Sebelius http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/03/03/the-majority-catholics-are-fake 2009-03-03T13:25:33-05:00 2009-03-05T17:38:46-05:00 Cristina Page Are you a "fake" Catholic? Don't worry, the majority of Catholics are. That's at least according to the religious right which has taken to doling out titles like "alleged Catholic." The most recent Catholic to earn the epithet is Kathleen Sebelius - current Governor of Kansas and Obama's choice for Secretary of HHS. Her nomination has drawn fire from right wing Catholic groups including the Catholic League and the American Life League, which refer to her as an "alleged Catholic."  After Catholics United came to her defense, Life News, an "anti-abortion" online news site, labeled it "fake Catholic."

According to these extremists, to be a "real" Catholic one must agree with the U.S. Bishops, and through them, the Vatican, on every issue, but especially on abortion. Kathleen Sebelius is pro-choice, as are the majority of U.S. Catholics. But Bishops who don't live in the real world where people juggle complicated lives, are free to be moral scolds. For these doctrinal purists, you're either with us or against us. And lately the Bishops enemy's list grows: John Kerry and recently Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, among the high value targets. And so they oppose Sebelius who the archbishop of Kansas City said should refrain from receiving communion.

The sad irony is that the Bishops end up in cahoots with pro-life extremists who shun even those fighting to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. Sebelius, for instance, while pro-choice, has achieved many of the goals the pro-life community supposedly endorses. While Governor she has focused on preventing unwanted pregnancy, resulting in a dramatic 10% decline in abortion rates during her time in office. (Genuine pro-lifers, those who actually seek to lower abortion rates, will find much in her record to commend.)

But results matter little for the religious right, and so they wage war on her nomination to head the Department of Health and Human Services (and on any group that supports her).  No matter that she expanded access to adoption and provided pregnancy support for low-income women. No matter that Sebelius has a nuanced view of abortion, one that differentiates between personal morality and public necessity. Sebelius says, "Personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation." Sebelius may well be an interesting figure for the times. She appears to understand both sides of this fierce struggle, and, better than most, might be able to push ahead a common ground approach. This is among the qualities that makes her a particularly important candidate for this important job.

It should come as no surprise that the locked-in-a-time-capsule groups attacking Sebelius are the very same resisting every effort to reach common ground. They appear too invested in their struggle to actually embrace solutions. But their very resistance may have advanced the common ground case, which has been swept in with President Obama. The attacks on Sebelius has prompted the nascent common ground movement to take a step together. Both sides have come together to defend her. The pro-choice side welcomes Sebelius. Leading Christian leaders "dedicated to common ground solutions to reduce the number of abortions in America" spoke out today via press release stating,

"[Sebelius] is a Democratic Governor who has been elected by wide margins in a state where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats two to one. Her nomination has already won not only the support of Democrats, but also praise from Republican pro-life senators such as Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and governors such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia. Her record and her relationships with leaders in both parties are proof that pro-choice and pro-life leaders can work together to advance a pro-family agenda."


And yet, in a relentless, ad hominen attack, the religious right dwells on circumstantial connections, hoping to imply dark motives. Kathleen Sebelius once stood in a room with an abortion provider who won, in a fundraising auction, a chance to meet her. Seems guilt by acquaintance is the right's new cudgel, so be careful who you Facebook friend.

For Sebelius' upcoming Senate confirmation hearing, the religious right has chosen Senator Tom Coburn as its hatchet man. Coburn is the redmeat  "pro-lifer," the kind with a decidedly pro-death streak: he's called for abortion providers to get the death penalty, leads campaigns against the condom (in doing so he also held up legislation that helped uninsured women dying of cancer pay for treatment) and opposes the cancer-preventing HPV vaccine among other career highlights. (Even though he's a Baptist, on these points, Coburn qualifies as a "real" Catholic.)

If falling in line with the US Bishops is a requirement for being a "real" Catholic, that's bad news for Catholics, as well as for the Church which, on this issue, seems to ever more devoutly move to the fringe of American life. According to a poll of Catholic voters taken by Catholics for a Free Choice in the 2008 election, 73% say Catholic politicians should be under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend. And like Sebelius, the majority of Catholics are pro-choice (58%). They vehemently disagree with the Church on birth control - the church opposes every form but the as-ineffective-as-it-is-unpopular natural family planning.  In fact, three-quarters of Catholics want health insurance plans to cover contraception. Nearly 80% of Catholics oppose pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. A comfortable majority, 64%, oppose abstinence-only education, another favorite of the moralizing bishops, and their activist enablers. Based on these numbers, the Church might want to reconsider its campaign to deny  pro-choice Catholic public officials the eucharist. The Church may refer to pro-choice politicians as extremists but the majority of Catholic congregants agree with pro-choice politicians like Sebelius on every one of these issues.

Sebelius thus represents the mainstream view of Catholic believers. And so the Catholic clergy and its political arm, the so-called 'anti-abortion" movement, misleads and incites. It creates a caricature. This may be effective with some, but they are fewer and fewer. Indeed, deriding moderate politicians like Sebelius marks the Church as out of step with the majority of Catholics. The Church has been reduced to focusing on issues that most Catholics, and most Americans, no longer consider most important, if they ever did.

In the last election, abortion didn't even make it in the top ten on the list of Catholic voters' priorities. Instead, the most important issues for Catholic Americans were, in order of importance: improving the nation's economy; protecting the US from terrorism; resolving the war in Iraq; making health care more affordable; and protecting social security. The Church has been noticeably absent in the public discourse on these issues making its rabid attacks on even moderate pro-choice officials seems all the more extraneous. (Those who would argue that Catholic hospitals help make healthcare more affordable by offering charity care should know that a study showed that non-sectarian hospitals were three times more likely to provide charity care than religious hospitals--the bulk of which are Catholic.)

Meanwhile, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops returns to the same well. As Time magazine exposed last week, it has been staging a massive campaign against a non-existent abortion bill--a costly and useless campaign intended to foment anger among the trusting faithful. Campaigning against a fictional bill instead of focusing on the real-life struggles of ever-more-pressured Americans.  (And, while fiddling with the sex lives of Americans, the Bishops have failed to tend to their own business. A survey by researchers at Villanova University found 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses responding had recently discovered embezzlement of church money. One in Delray Beach, Fla., involved two priests who spent $8.6 million on trips to Las Vegas, dental work, property taxes and other expenses over four decades.)

With campaigns like the one against Sebelius, the Catholic right wing is succeeding at making the Church less and less relevant to the majority of the faithful. But then perhaps the church realizes the deep danger to the religious right posed by the rise of Catholic moderates like Sebelius. 

]]> Obama Administration May Rescind "Conscience" Rule http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/27/obama-administration-may-rescind-conscience-rule 2009-02-27T11:55:48-05:00 2009-02-28T11:13:15-05:00 Cristina Page The Obama administration takes the first step to rescind Bush's midnight regulations that would allow any health care worker to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. ]]>

The Obama administration will rescind Bush's midnight regulations that would allow any health care worker to obstruct a woman's access to contraception, the Chicago Tribune reports this morning. In its place they will make another rule that clarifies "what health-care workers can reasonably refuse for patients."

Rachel Maddow celebrates the reversal of Bush's HHS "provider conscience" regulation.

The Tribune reports that, in an effort to strike "common ground," the administration is seeking perspective from "across the ideological spectrum before it finalizes the rollback." An unnamed official told the paper, "We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard."

It would appear the regulation was already beginning to wreak havoc in the mere two months it's been in effect. The Tribune reports,

Seven states, including California, Illinois and Connecticut, as well as two family planning groups, have filed suits challenging the Bush rule, arguing it sacrifices the health of patients to religious beliefs of medical providers.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has reported cases such as that of a Virginia mother of two who became pregnant because she was denied emergency contraception. In Texas, the group said, a rape victim had her prescription for emergency contraception rejected by a pharmacist.

We can expect the pro-lie movement to be at its finest making its case to the public to retain the refusal regulation. I predict we'll hear a lot from them about healthcare providers being forced to take part in abortion services and that they'll fail to mention that by "abortion" they mean "contraception." What often gets reported as a footnote in news stories is that three separate laws dating back 30 years already protect health care workers who refuse to take part in the delivery of abortions services.

The refusal regulation Obama is beginning to rescind today is of course very different and far more expansive than those laws. Even Bush's own officials at the EEOC spoke out against his regulation. The following is an excerpt from my piece, "Bush, Our Ex-Boyfriend," published on the day the regs took effect, inauguration day, literally in the last minutes of the Bush administration:

The HHS regulations were a last minute, hastily executed, unconstitutionally vague, attempt by Bush to repay his only loyal constituency left, the religious right wing. The regulations attempt to expand health care workers right to "consciously object" to the broadest array of health care services imaginable, basically anything, even in medical emergencies. They can, in other words, refuse to provide you medical care, because it offends them! It opens the door to many patient abuses, shreds state laws and contradicts federal discrimination statutes. Healthcare workers would be able to withhold information from a patient about healthcare options without the patient even knowing that any information is being withheld. Patients can be refused referrals if the healthcare worker objects to the care they're seeking somewhere else.

And here is one particularly bizarre twist. The regulations specify that workers don't have to inform their employers of the service or services they object to before hand. It's also unclear the extent to which employers have the right to ask job applicants about their willingness to take part in the services they provide. Thus, imagine the situation in which an anti-choice person applies for a position at Planned Parenthood. The employer couldn't ascertain that she's against abortion, nor could it fire her when she refused to have anything to do with it.

But the regulations' real intent (revealed in a draft version of the proposal leaked this summer) is perhaps worse: to allow those who want to obstruct a woman's access to birth control full license. Keep in mind, there is already ample protection for those who do not wish to take part in abortion services, three laws in fact. The right to refuse to take part in abortion services has existed for over 30 years. Here's the thrust of the new regulations (in my own words), "If you'd like to consider contraception an abortion method and refuse to take part, please do, but also feel free to object to contraception, or any other health care service, for any reason you can dream up. The only thing limiting your right to refuse is your own imagination." Your conscience is yours. Use it how you want. Even if it infringes on the conscience of others.



There will be a 30-day comment period about the rescinding of the regulation. RH Reality Check will post information about how to comment so please check back soon.

The Obama Administration promises to listen to all perspectives--one of the clearest hallmarks of how different an administration this is from the last. But as a result, we can't assume administration officials understand all the problems with the original regulations. That's why we must speak up as clearly now as we did before. We know for sure opponents of birth control will.

]]>