RHRealityCheck.org's News & Commentary

Today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance

Tara Sawyer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:59:58 -0500

November 20th is Transgender Day of Remembrance, and it's an opportunity for all of us to stand up to end violence against all women. Female identified people throughout the feminist movement have been pushing for equality, and have been breaking down the stereotypes of being women in our culture.

No longer are we forced to wear skirts, or cover our faces. This is blurring our gender binary system, by letting female identified women come together and wear what they want, when they want it. Transgendered people are a natural ally in this movement, because we too are blurring the gender binary. Some of us that are transgendered are very clearly male identified or female identified regardless of what we were assigned at birth. But others are less clear from a social standpoint and have a very strong sense of self that exists somewhere in between. This blurring of the gender binary is a wonderful thing, because it lets all of us be who we are and be treated with respect for our identities.

Yet, transgendered people regularly suffer violence, and even death for simply being who we are. We are still classified as having a mental health disorder, even though leading transgendered scholars have proven that it doesn't help us at all. Many of us have a very hard time after transition staying in our chosen profession, and we end up doing all sorts of socially unacceptable jobs, including sex work, which further puts us at a social disadvantage. When police are regularly documented beating us up, when nobody ever looks for our killer, when society doesn't let us go to the bathroom in peace, we know it's time for change.

Yet there is change, we've actually caught, gone to trial and successfully convicted someone for the murder of a transgendered person, which is rare. Federal laws are being talked about, however misguided they may actually be, and yet the number of deaths is rising, not falling. Some counts have the average number of murders of transgendered people at 19 per month! Or put another way, 1 in 12 of us in America will be murdered. But we as transgendered people are the only ones counting, in pretty much every country across the world. I'm a transgendered sex worker, and I want to not get killed for who I am or what I do. As our death count rises, I beg that you consider your prejudices around gender, and let us live in peace. I'm literally begging for my life.

The Real Victims of Stupak-Pitts

Dr. Suzanne Poppema — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

When I heard about the Stupak/Pitts amendment, I was in a room with 15 other doctors who shared my anger and disappointment. We had gathered for a board meeting for Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and we were horrified by the cruelty the amendment has in store for our patients.

In examining rooms, we see women in terrible pain, but their suffering doesn’t count in Stupak/Pitts world. By banishing abortion from the reform bill, the amendment punishes women who need to end unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies.

We share the stories below and on our website to show what can happen to women physically, financially, and emotionally when they don’t have insurance coverage for abortion. As physicians, we try our best to help these women. As advocates, we will fight to protect their access to abortion.

From Nancy Stanwood, MD, MPH:

My patient Carol was excited to give birth to her first child. Her husband was a Marine serving in Afghanistan. Sadly, in her second trimester, Carol learned that her baby had a lethal anomaly. She and her husband made the difficult decision to have an abortion.

That’s when they learned that the military health insurance they relied on wouldn’t cover the abortion unless Carol’s life was in danger.

Her husband was outraged. He had just flown back from Afghanistan to be with her, and he angrily asked me, “I’m over there defending my country, and they won’t even take care of my family?”

From Natalie Roche, MD:

Renee was 18 years old and in prenatal care for a pregnancy she wanted. Her physician found that she had an elevated white blood count. Renee was diagnosed with acute leukemia.

Her oncologist could not begin treatment. The chemotherapy Renee needed came with a risk of miscarriage that could cause fatal hemorrhaging or infection. She decided to have an abortion to save her life.

But Renee did not have insurance. It took time for her to find a doctor who could perform her abortion. The time she spent searching for a provider she could afford endangered her health. She developed anemia and dangerously low white blood cell and platelet counts. She also entered the second trimester of her pregnancy, making her abortion riskier.

I performed her abortion successfully, and Renee went on to have her treatment for leukemia. I do not know if it was too late.

From Willie Parker, MD, MPH:

A woman who was 16 weeks pregnant and had an alcohol problem came to me for an abortion. She knew that she was not ready to be a mother. But she had a condition with her placenta that made abortion risky, and I had to tell her that the procedure would require a hospital stay, making it much more expensive.

She didn’t have insurance or enough money to cover the termination. She had no choice but to continue the pregnancy. I got her into prenatal care. That was the best I could do.

From Pratima Gupta, MD, MPH:

I wasn’t able to help Anna. She became pregnant unexpectedly and decided to have an abortion. But when I started the paperwork for Anna’s procedure, her insurance coverage was denied. Anna works for the postal service, and as a government employee, she is not allowed to have health insurance coverage for abortion.

I had to tell Anna that I couldn’t provide her abortion, and I gave her the phone numbers of some clinics that could help. In the end, Anna had to borrow money from several friends to pay for her abortion. I will never forget how frightened and frantic she was to learn that her good government health insurance didn’t cover the care she needed.

From Renee E. Mestad, MD:

My patient Sherry is 24, pregnant, and the mother of a 7-month-old son. Although her pregnancy was not planned, Sherry and her husband were initially excited to have a little brother or sister for their boy. Then Sherry’s early ultrasound showed she had twins. She and her husband spent several weeks eagerly anticipating the growth of their family.

But the next ultrasound showed that the twins are conjoined, or Siamese. The babies are joined at the head, sharing a brain, and chest, sharing a heart. They have two spines, four arms, and four legs. It would be impossible to separate them. If they survive after birth, it would only be for a few minutes. One heart can’t keep two bodies alive. The risk of stillbirth is also very high.

Now 19 weeks into her pregnancy, Sherry tells me she is depressed. She wakes up every morning wondering if today will be the day her babies will die inside her. How would she deliver them? She knows that she would probably need a cesarean section because their combined size might make them too large for the birth canal. Sherry then imagines carrying the twins for another four and a half months. She sees herself delivering stillborns or watching her babies die minutes after their birth.

Sherry must decide whether to continue her pregnancy. An abortion might give her and her husband some emotional relief. And if the twins are small enough, she might not need surgery to remove them.

But because Sherry’s insurance will not pay for her abortion, she has to worry about money on top of her other fears. She is on Medicaid, which will cover the twins’ delivery, alive or dead, but not an abortion—fetal abnormality isn’t enough to get around the Hyde amendment. Although the abortion would be less expensive in a clinic, Sherry would have to go to a hospital since she could need surgery. She would be responsible for the entire bill of at least $10,000 to cover the operating room, anesthesia, medication, and other fees. This expense would destroy her family’s financial well-being.

Sherry can carry her babies to term who cannot and will not live, or she can have an abortion and possibly bankrupt her family.

Sherry’s pregnancy is medically rare, but her dilemma about money is all too familiar. When a woman doesn’t have insurance coverage for abortion, she and her family suffer.

Precious, Stupak, and the Erasure of Women's Lives

Sarah Seltzer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" couldn't come at a more frightening moment for American women. With the Stupak amendment literally and symbolically stripping women of equal status and ignoring our right to bodily self-determination, here is a movie that presents, in grim detail, the way race, class and gender bias render a woman's body invisible and susceptible to the worst kinds of abuse and neglect. Beyond that, the film is a reminder that when we talk about women's health every statistic masks a story, a woman's story that none of us can understand unless we see it firsthand. This is the underlying message of the reproductive justice movement, a message many of our legislators have forgotten or never learned.

This isn't to say that "Precious" should be read only as a piece of political commentary--it's a work of art first and foremost. But it's hard not to see the parallels. Congress continues down the path of separating women into two groups--women of means who have reproductive rights and women without economic, social or geographic privileges who lack them. Meanwhile women are flocking to theaters to see Precious Jones dream of being someone who, in her mind, matters: a white married woman who lives in Westchester. Her innermost thoughts echo the divide that Stupak-Pitts would put on the books.

Social critics and film critics alike are divided on whether "Precious," the story of an obese, illiterate, victimized young African-American woman's self-actualization through literacy, constitutes "poverty porn ," an unrealistic "fairy tale " or something with a "spirit that soars ." This polarizing effect arises from the film's methodology: like many politically-conscious artists before them, filmmaker Lee Daniels and author Sapphire have stacked circumstances against a protagonist until it's almost unbearable, then given her a shot of hope. Precious is raped by her father, beat up by her mother, scorned by everyone else. While the story itself hearkens back to The Bluest Eye and The Color Purple, Clarisse "Precious" Jones also recalls a character in a Victorian "social problem" novel. A child herself and pregnant with her second baby by her father, she is both an Oliver Twist and a Tess Durbeyfield, shunned and dismissed as less than human by everyone around her (and perhaps the audience initially), but with an inner light that throws her corrupt, decaying society into relief.

Subtle it isn't, but the story has a mass appeal and an absolute urgency in making viewers interrogate their own assumptions. The question of bodies hangs over the whole film. Everyone around Precious violates her bodily autonomy, from her father to her mother who physically, verbally and sexually torments her, to the school officials repulsed by her pregnancy to boys on the street who ignore, mock or push her. Her very presence is treated as an affront: too large, too dark, too sexual, too hungry.

Precious herself believes this. She longs to be thin and "light-skinned" or white--she suffers deeply from internalized racism and sexism. During her most harrowing moments she has fantasies about being on the red carpet or in music videos, showing the power of pop cultural images to create teenagers' aesthetic values and perhaps cause self-worth to plummet. Precious's dad is almost entirely off-screen, but his shadow looms: Precious's mother Mary, is in thrall to his presence, deeply jealous of her daughter because she has unwillingly captured this monstrous man's attention (and because her daughter's swelling belly symbolizes her own inability to parent). This is her excuse for throwing fists, kicks, taunts and household objects at Precious.

The film's two female-only spaces, the stifling, horror-filled home with Mary, and the limitless school room, are study in contrasts. Precious's mentor, an alternative-education teacher named Blu Rain, is in a loving lesbian relationship. Precious finds her voice among this group of young women like herself, all learning to read together. In Precious's life, the sole male hero is a gentle nurse who doesn't mind being teased about his job. In this way "Precious" doesn't indict men as much as reject the patriarchal values of dominance and competition, in favor of cooperation, communication and nurturing.

"Precious" puts its greatest faith in the transformational ability to express ourselves. Precious, formerly illiterate, recites the ABCs in her darkest moments; her burgeoning ability to put pen to paper is her salvation. In the "real world" this message rings true: literacy in the broader sense is absolutely essential to the formation of a self, the ability to establish boundaries and envision a future. Precious doesn't fully grasp what has been taken away from her until she begins to understand and accept who she is: not only through building her vocabulary but through learning to "read" personal, social, and emotional situations.

The film asks that we never see Precious herself as a symbol. She's a real person with a sharp sense of humor and desires that are hers alone. Still, that personalized story makes a statement. Beneath the scenes of depravity and misery which make the audience gasp or shield its eyes, "Precious" is an affirmation, a reminder that the people we may ignore on the street (or when we pass bills in congress) have unique souls. It's also reminder that government programs, when actually staffed by decent people, can truly help: an alternative school, a halfway house, a counselor end up helping Precious save herself.

"Precious" is a complex, sometimes difficult work of art whose underlying politics matter mostly in service to its heroine's story. I recommend the pieces below for some nuanced analysis of the film's content. For some viewers, the film's broader critiques are overshadowed by the horrifying (and perhaps stereotypical ) spectacle of Mary's persona. For others, the casting of lighter-skinned actors in the heroic roles reinforces the colorism the story aims to combat.

But flaws aside, the film's messages are worth pondering at this difficult moment for American women. Restrictions like the Hyde Amendment and Stupak-Pitts don't just divide women into have and have-nots, but also into "good" and "bad." The fact that until this week, the RNC provided abortion coverage to its own members proves again that bills like this are less about saving fetuses and more about punishing certain women and refusing the social safety net to those deemed "undeserving." But "Precious" asks us, all of us, to see deserving and undeserving in a new light.

The film's release in tandem with the Stupak-Pitts disaster strikes back against the amendment's underlying assumption: the belief that some people are worth more than others, that some bodies deserve less protection than others, and that some stories don't need to be told.

Other great commentary on "Precious":

Nina Sankovitch: Why Precious Matters HuffPo

Why Hasn't Precious Received "The Color Purple" Treatment? The Root

Slowly but Surely, "Precious" Finds Success, Criticism , Jezebel

Of "Precious," Percival and My Pafology,at Racialicious

Long Day's Journey Into Night: Watching Precious, Reading Push Racialicious

Get Real! I'm Becoming a Christian: How Can I Reconcile My Faith With My Sex Life?

Heather Corinna — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

This article is published in partnership with Scarlateen.com. Hugo Schwyzer co-wrote it with Heather Corinna.

kaylinha13 asks:

Hello, my name is Christine, I am 20 years old and I have had a boyfriend for about 5 years. We have been having intercourse for over 2 years now but recently, for about 3 months, I have started going to an apostolic church and I am thinking about getting baptised and becoming a Christian. But I have a question about what I should do about my sexual life: should I abandon it until I get married now? Because this is really weighing heavily on my morals. I have asked many friends in my church on their opinion about this, and they tell me that premarital sex causes to leave an open doorway for the devil get in so that he can distort sex after marriage. I know that God will not love me any less or be disappointed in me, but if you sacrifice something for God, it will be so much better for you in the end. Everyone has heard that silly line: "sex stops after you get married". I don't want that to be the case...so will sex be better in marriage or does it really make a difference if I continue to make love to my significant other? Because this sounds like a skeptical concept to me... please help!! Thank you.

Heather Corinna replies:

While I grew up with some Catholic and ex-Catholic family and can certainly speak to your issues in some respect, I didn't feel like I was the best person to address them. I'm Zen Buddhist, and my spiritual belief system and tradition not only doesn't have a god in it at all, it also has very different attitudes about sex (both in its core principles and also among Buddhists) than most denominations of Christianity and many Christians do. I also don't view sex as marital or premarital. Given all of that, I felt like you could use both an educated answer but also one from someone who understood better what you're grappling with than I could, and could answer you in a far more personal way.

I asked my fantastic friend Hugo Schwyzer if he'd answer your question instead. Hugo is a history and gender studies professor at a community college, an animal rights activist and an Episcopal youth minister. He's very good people. I'm always so impressed with the way he talks about sexuality and Christianity. I think you'll appreciate what he had to say.

(Just FYI for other readers, Scarleteen is space that serves people of a wide range of spiritual belief systems and traditions. So, when Hugo is talking here, understand it is in response to Christine and her belief system: it's not espousing any one belief system as the only or right one for all of us.)

So, here's Hugo:

Dear Christine,

Thanks for writing.

As someone just beginning a new faith journey, it’s understandable that you’d be a bit confused by the messages you’re hearing from your friends in church. Surely, they want the best for you, and they’re giving you information based upon their own understanding of what it is that God wants for us. But even though you’re very new in the church, not even baptized, it’s perfectly okay for you to ask questions – and maybe discover some answers that are different from the ones you’ve been hearing.

First off, you need to know that a lot of what folks say the Bible says about sex isn’t really in the Scriptures at all. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns masturbation (the sin of Onan is about the withdrawal method), nothing that condemns loving and mutually committed homosexual relationships, and very, very little about pre-marital sex. The references in the New Testament to “sexual immorality” and “fornication” are based on a very loose translation of a single Greek word, “porneia (yeah, we get the word “porn” from it) which is better translated as “adultery.” Adultery, of course, is sex that breaks a commitment to someone else. If you were to cheat on your boyfriend (or, if you guys get married, your husband), you would certainly be committing “porneia”. But sex before marriage between two people who are not committed to others? Most scholars think the Bible says nothing about that at all.

Let me suggest, Christine, that God cares more about the content of our sexuality than he does about its form. Traditional Christian sexual ethics are often discussed in the context of what Christians can and can’t do. Some Christians will often say things like “the only form of genital contact sanctioned by God is that which happens in a marriage between one husband and one wife.” The implication is clear: if you get the “form” (heterosexual marriage) right, then the sex that follows is okay. If you haven’t got the form right, then you’ve “fallen short of the mark.”

But “form-based” sexual ethics clearly have their problems.

For example, it ignores entirely the great likelihood that coercion, disrespect, and force can take place within marriage. The Churches did not start condemning marital rape — or even acknowledging that such a concept was possible — until the second half of the twentieth century. Is a situation in which a husband demands sex from his wife against her will somehow more in keeping with the spirit of Christ than a situation in which two unmarried people make love with mutual enthusiasm? If you’re a stickler for “form-based ethics”, you bet. For the most traditional of theologians, marital rape is less of a serious sin than homosexuality or pre-marital sex, because form matters more than content.

“Content” based sexual ethics are concerned with the way in which people, in the process of being sexual, value themselves and their partners. Content-based ethics are deeply concerned with mutuality, with pleasure, and with the willingness of each partner to take responsibility for the physical, spiritual, and emotional consequences of what is done. Form-based ethics teach the Christian to ask the question “Am I allowed to do this?” Content-based ethics teach the Christian to ask “Am I truly loving — in every sense of the word — the person or persons with whom I am doing this, including myself?”

As for marriage, there’s no evidence that sex before marriage ruins sex after.

I know a great many happily married people (my wife and I are two of them) who had great sex while they were dating – and great sex after they were wed. God isn’t in the business of punishing people for pre-marital sex by making the sex they have as husband and wife tedious and unfulfilling! What makes sex in any long-term relationship seem stale is a lack of communication and the habit of taking one’s partner for granted – and that can happen just as easily to folks who were virgins on their wedding night as it can to those who weren’t.

Good, just, and spiritual sex can happen both inside and outside of marriage. And I’m certain that the God you’re just starting to get to know, Christine, cares more about the care and concern that you and your boyfriend share together than he does about the fact that you’re not married.

Focus on the way you treat each other – the content of your relationship – and give thanks for the pleasure you both give and receive. Your friends may quote to you Hebrews 13:4, the chapter which is often mistakenly used to condemn pre-marital sex. (It only condemns infidelity and sex with underage prostitutes if you read the Greek closely). Focus instead on Hebrews 13:15, from the very same chapter. It says that the best sacrifice is the “sacrifice of praise.” You know, even atheists sometimes cry out “Oh God!” when they orgasm; that’s giving thanks for the gift of receiving and sharing pleasure. God made our bodies to give and receive intense joy. When you make love with your boyfriend, thank God for giving you that power and that possibility.

Here are a few links at Scarleteen which might also help you out:

Truth Is Indeed One of the First Casualties of War

Jon O'Brien — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:37:40 -0500

This article was originally published on HuffingtonPost.com.

Jim Wallis' protracted lecture on how abortion has become a central part of the health care reform debate proves how truth is, indeed, one of the first casualties of war--even a culture war. Here, I examine just a few of his statements to show how his version of events is so far removed from reality that we should reject his premises, arguments and conclusions in toto.

"The culture wars have begun again.

Jim is mistaken. Did the culture wars ever go away? And if they did, who has reignited the flames? Throughout this process, we in the pro-choice community have supported health care reform and worked hard with Members of Congress to pass a comprehensive health care reform package. We have stayed true to our core values, seeking to overcome the struggles ordinary Americans have making ends meet. These struggles mean that many cannot afford basic health care or have to choose between maintaining their health and paying for other basic necessities. The anti-choice lobby, with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and its Office of Prolife Activities at the helm, has shown that it is willing to stop at nothing to ensure that its own views, which are shared by very few Americans, held sway. This lobby, aided by the 64 Democrats who voted to insert unfounded red herrings into a critical life-and-death debate over the basic right of access to health care, exploited the vulnerabilities of the Democratic Party. Wallis is an exemplar of this lobby, seeking to limit access to abortion at every turn. He was ably abetted by the self-described "progressive pro-lifers" like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, whose comparisons of abortion to torture gained resonance among those who are unyieldingly opposed to women's reproductive freedoms. We should not forget that Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good were founded with the support of senior Democratic strategists--whose main interest was in a Congressional majority, and not the goals and principles supported by those who might vote for such a majority.

"Those of us who have worked hard to find some common ground in this debate, it's now becoming an all win-or-lose situation.... [We have sought] to help forge some compromise."

Jim is mistaken. He is not interested in any compromise that includes access to abortion. The pro-choice community has been working hard to find a middle ground in the abortion debate. There were those of us who were more than willing to refine the Capps Amendment that was rejected by the anti-choice lobby, but Wallis and his friends worked tirelessly to reject any compromise along those lines. Jim Wallis' limited discussions with the pro-choice community have been obstructionist and unhelpful. As regards compromise, there was, in reality, no room for compromise once the anti-choice movement decided that it was willing to trade health care reform in their desire to further restrict access to abortion.

"The bill that was passed by the House was a huge step toward one of the greatest legislative accomplishments and victories for social justice in a generation."

Jim is mistaken. The bill, as currently constructed, is like passing the Americans with Disabilities Act, but excluding the visually impaired from the protections in the legislation. Leaving out what Jim coyly refers to, with quotes, as "women's health" is anathema to those of us who fight for improved access to women's health care services every day. If we exclude access to abortion for women in this bill, all of the other advances are compromised. Reproductive justice is the basis of women's equality--without it, women become second-class citizens.

"The bill that came out of the House achieves many of the goals of the faith community by providing health care for 36 million more people, or almost 96% of Americans."

Jim is mistaken. The reality is that health care reform was not initiated to achieve the goals of the faith community. The aim of the bill was to provide health care for those who did not have it. Americans were promised that if people liked their existing coverage, they would not lose it. That promise has been broken.

"While we still need to include everybody -- especially immigrants for whom this bill is still very inadequate -- the House vote was a major legislative achievement."

Jim is mistaken. Just as he is willing to throw women's health care under the bus, so is Wallis also willing to throw immigrants' health under the bus. The needs or rights of any group that get in the way of Jim Wallis' definition of what constitutes a "major legislative achievement" are expendable.

"Although the Capps Amendment was meant as a good faith effort to find common ground...it failed to address many pro-life concerns...Capps might have been a fruitful starting point for dialogue."

Jim is mistaken. Polling has shown that many Americans are willing to support a compromise on this issue, such as that outlined in the Capps Amendment. Polls by Catholics for Choice and the Mellman Group prove this. However, this compromise was not enough for anti-choice extremists such as Jim Wallis. We should also remember that it is not always possible to meet people half way. And in such cases, the majority should hold sway. Sadly, the Democratic leadership decided that the minority view, and Bart Stupak's opposition to abortion is the view of a very small minority, would win the day. And American women were the losers.

"Sojourners...worked very hard to find a solution here and were one of the very few groups really talking to both sides."

Jim is mistaken. Sojourners' discussions with the pro-choice side must have been in whispers, because few recall hearing from them and as I noted above, what we did hear was described as obstructionist and unhelpful.

"Because the pro-life side wasn't really invited into a real discussion about possible solutions, the "compromise" missed some important things, misread the real situation, and failed to pass the tests of maintaining current law, abortion neutrality, and the status quo."

Jim is mistaken. The antiabortion side decided that it was not interested in any compromise, hence the "my way or the highway" showdown between on one side Bart Stupak and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on the other. Therefore they pushed us beyond a compromise, "the current law, abortion neutrality and the status quo." In fact, this is particularly hard to fathom--given the demand by Bart Stupak and others that the bill would fail if their language, and no version thereof was acceptable, was not given a vote and included in the final bill to pass the House of Representatives.

"Both sides had seemed to agree with the principle that no one should be required to fund abortion if their conscience compels them not to, and that no abortion should be paid for with federal funds."

Jim is mistaken. Both sides had agreed that we would support a bill that would not further either side's agenda. Through our taxes, we are all forced to fund things with which we disagree. For those who support immigration reform, including Jim Wallis we understand, funding for unjust immigration policies should be opposed. Yet we have never heard him support moves that would destroy legislation over those issues. Why is abortion different?

"The pro-choice side acknowledges the conscience argument, but wants to ensure access to legal abortion and believes that such access should not be restricted by those who oppose the law on the grounds of conscience. This tacit agreement also follows public opinion in that a majority of the country doesn't want to make all abortions illegal, but doesn't want public funds to pay for it."

Jim is mistaken. His approach to conscience protections is very one-sided. In fact, we find that a majority of Catholics supports federal funding for abortion, as do other cohorts of the population. The claim that the public is unhappy with federal funding is a myth propagated by those opposed to abortion. Would he have us disregard the consciences of women and men who support abortion access?

"How to protect the consciences of both sides here -- pro-life tax payers and the women who want access to legal abortion -- is a most difficult issue to resolve."

Jim is mistaken. This is a false dichotomy. Prolife taxpayers and pro-choice taxpayers might be a reasonable comparison, or perhaps those who want to preserve access to legal abortion and those who wish to deny access to legal abortion. The circle of people who support choice extends beyond women who want access to legal abortion--it includes men, women who are not able to or no longer able to have children and a host of others. It is, in reality, a simple issue to resolve. All insurance policies, federal and private, should offer medical coverage for legal health services to those who want them. If anybody is uncomfortable about what is offered, they can choose not to avail of those services.

"More than 85% of those women, if present numbers hold up, will pay for the abortion with private funds, and only 13% will use health-care plans to pay for it."

Jim is mistaken. This is one of the many misrepresentations by those who seek to minimize the impact of the Stupak-Pitts amendment. The claim that only a few women will be affected is irrelevant and wrong. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the claim is wrong on three counts:

Their study was of all women who had an abortion in 2001, including women on Medicaid and those who are uninsured--who would not have been able to access coverage for abortion. If we looked only at privately insured women, the percentage of procedures billed directly to insurance companies would be substantially higher than 13 percent.

The 13 percent statistic does not include women who pay for an abortion up front and then seek reimbursement from their insurance provider. This is common when a medical provider does not participate in a patient's insurance plan, as is often the case with small, specialized providers, including abortion providers.

Some of the women identified as paying out of pocket would likely have had insurance coverage for abortion care, but did not know they had it or chose not to use it for reasons of confidentiality. Given the stigma that still surrounds abortion, many women do not want their insurer or employer--or their spouse or parent who may be the primary policyholder--to learn that they had one.

"We could also take the two bills in Congress that seek to reduce abortion by supporting low-income women in all kinds of practical ways -- one with support for contraception and one without."

Jim reveals his real agenda. Despite his carefully nuanced positions, we know that Jim Wallis is anti-choice and opposes access to comprehensive reproductive health services for women. In this passage, Jim Wallis lets his guard down. In Jim Wallis' world, women's health care services are expendable. We can see this in his willingness to allow the debate over abortion to go even further and exclude access to contraception as well. Is the Stupak amendment not enough for him? No, it is not.

In short, Jim Wallis' arguments repeat the talking points of those who have sought to restrict access to abortion since it became legal in 1973. Wallis lays claim to the mantle of negotiator and centrist, the voice of reason in an acrimonious and angry debate. In fact he is the opposite. Wallis is antiabortion, and according to his essay, is open to seeing health care reform go beyond the abortion issue and also restrict access to contraception. His is not the voice of reason, but that of a culture warrior in extremis. The fact that he wears clerical garb should not distract us from the fact that he is more political than pastoral and that one of his goals is to make abortion illegal. Our mantra is "Safe, Legal and Accessible." His is "Dangerous, Illegal and Inaccessible."

I agree with Jim Wallis that the truth has become a casualty in this war. But if Jim Wallis and his conservative allies have their way, women will become another casualty.

Two New Analyses Show Women Have "Much at Stake" Under Stupak Amendment

Jodi Jacobson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Two new analyses, one by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and the other by George Washington University, show just how much the Stupak Amendment would undermine women's basic human rights to exercise choice over childbearing, to access comprehensive reproductive health care, to access abortions (a legal procedure in the United States), and to ensure they are covered by insurance for unanticipated pregnancy-related conditions that could, absent coverage, leave them and their families with enormous debt.

The Kaiser Study

"Women have much at stake in the ongoing national debate on health reform," states a new brief by KFF, which continues:

Comprehensive coverage and the scope of benefits are at the heart of making health care accessible to women. The decisions that policy makers enact regarding access and coverage of abortion are sure to be the subject of tremendous discussion and debate, and could affect care for millions of women today and in the future.

The KFF brief compares the bill passed 10 days ago by the House of Representatives with those still working their way through the Senate. (It was written prior to release today of the omnibus Senate bill by Majority Leader Harry Reid.)

"The way that the final House bill addresses abortion coverage has
the potential to affect many women," notes KFF, underscoring the incorrect ways in which the media has portrayed this issue.

"[A]bortion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on women. In 2005, there were more than 1.2 million abortions in the United States. It is estimated that at current rates, about a third of women will have had an abortion by age 45."

The Kaiser brief first reviews current law, noting:

Current federal law bans the use of any federal funds for abortion, except in the event of rape, incest, or the woman’s life endangerment, as specified in the federal Hyde Amendment, which has been in effect since 1977.

This amendment is not a permanent law but is attached annually to Congressional appropriations bills, and has been approved every year by the Congress.
The broadest reach of the Hyde Amendment is on Medicaid, basically limiting federal Medicaid funding for abortions to life endangerment, rape, or incest cases in most states. States can choose to broaden the circumstances to cover other “medically necessary” abortions for women on Medicaid with their own funds and 17 states do, but in the majority of states women on Medicaid only have coverage in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy is documented by a physician to be a threat to the life of the woman. Over the years, the Hyde Amendment has been broadened to limit federal funds for abortion for federal employees, in the Indian Health Service, and women in the military.

The House bill expands coverage to many of the nation’s uninsured by extending Medicaid eligibility to all qualifying individuals with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level and establishing a national health insurance exchange--a sort of marketplace where individuals with incomes above 150% of poverty can purchase insurance coverage. Initially, the Exchange would be open to all qualifying people who are uninsured and employees of some small businesses, with the possibility of opening it to more people over time. It would offer multiple insurance plans from which individuals can choose including at least one publicly financed plan as well as several privately operated plans. To help individuals purchase insurance, the federal government will provide subsidies (in the form of premium credits) to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 150% and 400% above the poverty level.

The House bill also extends premium credits to individuals with employer-sponsored insurance if their share of premiums exceeds 12% of their income, which could make an additional 1 million people eligible for purchasing coverage in the Exchange.

"In total," notes Kaiser, "it is estimated that 86% of participants in the Exchange would receive subsidies."

Kaiser notes:

The House bill places a number of restrictions on coverage of abortion, with the most direct impact on the plans that will be offered in the new Health Insurance Exchange. According to the legislation, the public plan within the Exchange would be prohibited from providing coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by current federal law (to save the life of the woman or in cases of rape or incest). The House bill also prohibits federal premium credits that low-income individuals will receive from the federal government from being used to purchase a health plan in the Exchange that includes coverage for all but federally permitted abortions. Although it is not required, private insurers may opt to offer a plan in the Exchange that covers abortions beyond those permitted by federal law. These insurers, however, will be required to also offer an identical plan that does not cover abortions for which federal funding is prohibited.

Private plans participating in the Exchange may choose to offer
supplemental coverage for abortions in the form of riders that are totally
separate from other benefits, but that coverage must be paid for entirely with non-federal funds. Furthermore, the plans must be separately operated to assure that federal funds are not used to administer or operate plans that cover abortions.

According to Kaiser, an estimated 12.4 million women ages 15 to 44 are uninsured, 94% of whom would qualify for federal assistance (61% through Medicaid—7.5 million women; and 33% for federal
premium credits subsidies to purchase coverage—4.1 million women).

Impact of the House Bill:

Kaiser states that provisions in the House bill would "have direct effects on women seeking coverage in the Exchange as well as on plans that
offer coverage in the Exchange."

Women who choose the public option would not have abortion coverage nor would they have access to a rider.
Women who receive any level of federal subsidy cannot purchase coverage from a plan that offers abortion coverage, but they do have the option of purchasing a separate rider for abortion coverage alone, if offered by the plan.
Women who do not receive federal subsidies and seek coverage in the Exchange could be able to buy coverage from a plan that offers an abortion benefit, if such a plan is available.

Kaiser underscores what others have also noted:

It is unclear whether a woman would necessarily seek or know to buy a service-specific rider for abortion when she is choosing her insurance plan, or whether women without subsidies would necessarily know whether they are buying coverage from a plan that covers abortion or not. It is also unknown what the price differential would be between the two plans and how much the rider would cost, if offered. The House bill goes beyond the Senate committee bills by requiring the sale of a distinct insurance product that is designed specifically for those receiving subsidized coverage. For insurers, the House bill sets a number of restrictions, particularly the requirement to isolate federal dollars from private funds because a plan that receives any federal funds cannot provide abortion coverage. Although it is hard to predict the response of insurance plans to this type of law, some legal scholars contend that given the size of the potential pool of women and their families that will be eligible for federal subsidies under the exchange and other complexities, this might limit he development of insurance plans that offer either abortion coverage or a rider, and ultimately carry over to products offered in the employer market.

Many women who now have coverage for abortion care would lose it.

This complex combination of restrictions means that many women who will obtain coverage under health reform either through Medicaid or the Exchange would have to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket, the cost of which varies depending on factors such as location, facility, timing, and type of procedure.

A clinic-based abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation is estimated to cost between $400 and $550, whereas an abortion at 20-21 weeks’ gestation is estimated to cost $1,250-$1,800. The vast majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy. In 2004, 89% were in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and only 1% were at 21 weeks or later. In general, abortions performed in hospitals are more expensive than those performed at clinics.

The House bill dramatically expands the Medicaid program, and extends insurance to qualifying uninsured individuals with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty line.

"The Medicaid program already serves millions of low-income women," notes Kaiser, "and is a major financier of reproductive health services. It is estimated that two-thirds of adult women on Medicaid are in their reproductive years." In 33 states and the District of Columbia, state Medicaid programs do not pay for any abortions beyond the Hyde restrictions. In these states, an estimated 4.5 million women ages 15-44 are currently uninsured and also have incomes less than 150% of the
federal poverty level. Many of these women would likely qualify for Medicaid under the new House bill.

They will be forced to pay for their insurance with their rights.

The George Washington University (GWU) Study

This study, conducted by the George Washington University School of Public Health, focused on the implications of the Stupak Amendment for the health benefits industry on the whole; the growth of the public market for supplemental coverage: and the implications for covering abortions that are a consequence of an unexpected condition.

The study concludes that:

The treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange. [emphasis added].

Stupak-Pitts, according to the authors:

Can be expected to move the industry away from current norms of coverage for medically indicated abortions. In combination with the Hyde Amendment, Stupak/Pitts will impose a coverage exclusion for medically indicated abortions on such a widespread basis that the health benefit services industry can be expected to recalibrate product design downward across the board in order to accommodate the exclusion in selected markets.

The Amendment will inhibit development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions.

In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling. This bar is in addition to the challenges inherent in administering any supplemental policy. These challenges would be magnified in the case of medically indicated abortions because, given the relatively low number of medically indicated abortions, the coverage supplement would apply to only a handful of procedures for a handful of conditions. Furthermore, the House legislation contains no direct economic incentive to create such a market [and would leave in doubt] states’ ability to offer supplemental Medicaid coverage to
women insured through a subsidized exchange plan.

"Spillover" effects as a result of administration of Stupak/Pitts will result in dramatically reduced coverage for potentially catastrophic conditions.

The authors write: "The administration of any coverage exclusion raises a risk that, in applying the exclusion, a plan administrator will deny coverage not only for the excluded treatment but also for related treatments that are intertwined with the exclusion."

The risk of such improper denials in high risk and costly cases is great in the case of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, which, like the Hyde Amendment, distinguishes between life-threatening physical conditions and conditions in which health is threatened. Unlike Medicaid agencies, however, the private health benefit services industry has no experience with this distinction. The danger is around coverage denials in cases in which an abortion is the result of a serious health condition rather than the direct presenting treatment.

Noting that the entire industry may be pushed toward using life-threatening conditions as "the standard," the authors note that "it is likely that all women will risk coverage denials, regardless of the market in which their coverage is obtained," and will lose coverage for medically indicated abortions that may well threaten both health and ultimately life.

Under these circumstances, what is the norm today in the employer-sponsored market – broad coverage of medically indicated abortions – is likely to narrow considerably as the industry seeks to restructure its product design to meet the most restrictive demands. If this consequence flows, then the industry, confronting the challenges of distinguishing between enrollees for a handful of covered procedures and specific conditions, can be expected simply to eliminate certain procedures and conditions from coverage altogether, leaving women and families exposed.

"Stupak/Pitts and Hyde...presume that abortion is the immediate subject of the claim for coverage," note the authors.

But this is not always the case.

High risk pregnancies themselves could be identified as potentially
abortion-related.

Conditions such as diabetes (observed in 1% of pregnancies) which are poorly controlled can lead to serious health consequences for both the woman and the fetus, including major congenital abnormalities, and a higher risk of spontaneous loss, which might in turn trigger an abortion if the pregnancy cannot be saved. Management of recurrent pregnancy loss or complicated multi-fetal pregnancies (increasingly prevalent with widespread use of assisted reproductive technologies) may also be considered abortion-related conditions. Similarly, uncontrolled hypertension, trauma during pregnancy, seizure disorders and other conditions, all require complex management and may persist beyond the pregnancy, and may result in abortion-related care. These concerns have increasing individual and public health consequence as age at pregnancy, body mass index and associated metabolic and cardiovascular abnormalities, Cesarean section rates, multi-fetal pregnancy rates, and use of assisted reproductive technologies have all increased dramatically in recent years.

Additionally, state the authors, "in response to more limited access to abortion services, there may be an increase in self-induced abortion, potentially through increased self-administration of misoprostol. Coverage for treatment of complications such as hemorrhage and incomplete abortion in such cases could be denied."

In these circumstances, how are plan administrators to distinguish between the abortion procedure and the rest of the treatment? Will the entire cost of a course of treatment (e.g., surgery to repair a damaged pelvis following an automobile accident) be denied if violation for paying for the excluded abortions, may elect to deny the treatment altogether, claiming that it is all related to the excluded treatment.

"As the denial is appealed, the financial consequences for patients potentially will be enormous."

"One of the great challenges in insurance reform is the unintended consequences of regulation," write the authors.

The Stupak/Pitts Amendment is intended to reach only a specific part of the market. But the cumulative effect of the provision, in combination with existing federal laws governing Medicaid and federal employee health benefits (as well as the law of certain states) inevitably can be expected to move the entire health benefits industry away from its current inclusive coverage norms and toward a new norm of exclusion. The provisions of the legislation, as well as the technical challenges that arise in benefits administration, militate against the creation of a supplemental coverage market. Thus, if the result of national health reform is to move millions of women into a market that operates subject to the exclusion, then it is fair to predict that the entire market for coverage ultimately will be affected as a product tipping point is reached and virtually no supplemental market appears.

In addition, state the authors:

Given past experience and the sanctions that arise from a violation, it is reasonable to predict that in interpreting and applying the exclusion, health plan administrators will err on the side of coverage denial. This is because the legal risks associated with coverage determination are all on the side of incorrectly awarding coverage, not erroneously denying it. This balancing of risks can be expected to lead insurers to calibrate coverage determinations in a way that works against women whose medical conditions ultimately lead to an abortion that they never willingly sought.

In short, as many have already argued, women will bear the brunt of a policy created based on ideology and discrimination, not public health, pushed through by those who appear to care little for either women's rights or their lives and health.

A Federal Employee Expresses Outrage on Stupak

Carole Joffe — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

This article appeared in the Fall 2009 issue of Ms. Magazine and is reprinted here with permission from Ms.

“Our medical experts have determined that your life was not in danger and you could have carried the pregnancy to term. And, by the way, you owe us $9,000.”

Her voice breaking, D.J. Feldman, a Washington, D.C. federal employee, recently spoke to the press about her struggles with her insurance company after she aborted a much-desired pregnancy because of a fetal diagnosis of anencephaly (the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp). The insurance would only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or a threat to her life, so the fact that if Feldman had continued the pregnancy, it would have been both physically and emotionally grueling—resulting either in a fetal demise, a stillbirth, or a live birth of a newborn who would quickly die—had no effect on the insurance company’s decision.

The primary culprit in this situation is not really Feldman’s insurance carrier, however, but the U.S. Congress. For decades it has imposed such unconscionable restrictions on abortion coverage for federal employees, as well as on women in the military, Native Americans using government provided health facilities and women on Medicaid in a majority of states.

Feldman is speaking out now because of her outrage that the notorious Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House health reform measure would extend such federal bans on abortion coverage to the millions of women who are enrolled in the private insurance market. Under this amendment, any insurance plan that wishes to be part of the new national health-care exchange would be prohibited from offering abortion coverage, although most insurance plans currently offer this coverage.

As Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which organized the press conference at which Feldman spoke, put it: “The ban on abortion coverage represents an enormous and unprecedented incursion into the terms of the private insurance market….Stupak-Pitts would regulate abortion coverage for people working for private employers or those who are self-employed.”

The press conference also featured a television advertisement that has just been produced by the Center which effectively points to the unfairness—if not the absurdity—of such a ban. The ad will run on MSNBC, other cable stations and media websites.

As traumatic as D.J. Feldman’s story is, she acknowledges that she is more fortunate than many other women in her situation, since she and her husband were able to pay for her abortion themselves. But she doesn’t want other women forced into a similar situation, especially those without extra financial resources. Feldman has not only spoken to the press but also visited various Congressional offices to speak against Stupak-Pitts. “I realized I had a moral obligation to speak out,” she said.

Motherhood in America: Some Apples for Your Pie

Anat Shenker — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

As news of Stupak has dominated our livid attention, many of us may not have heard the amazing gains made for motherhood in America. As of this month, all states will now allow women receiving aid through Women Infants and Children (WIC) to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables. For the first time, ever.

To anyone who hopes to accuse us of stinginess, we announce that we’re giving participating mothers $8 per month and children $6 per month in vouchers to purchase produce. Wait it gets better, breast feeding mothers get $10! Yes, that’s right $10 whole dollars to stretch over 30 delicious, vitamin-packed days.

Now what low-income woman wouldn’t want to stay pregnant regardless of her circumstances or desires with that kind of reward on the table? Could it be she’s the one thinking precisely of life -- contemplating the one her child will lead? Or perhaps she’s concerned for her already impoverished existing children and how she will manage an additional one to clothe, feed, shelter and -- dare she hope -- educate.

Right now Congress and armies of lobbyists determine whether women will be deemed worthy of access to the full range of health care the law and medical science allows. We’re hearing lots about the importance of life and the sacred bond of mother and child. So, what about motherhood.

A cursory glance at maternal health will tell you just how much we value how life is given in this country. We advocate for and in some cases force over one-third of women to undergo major abdominal surgery (though we’ve given it a nicer name), rates unknown abroad. We’ve turned a supposedly blessed event into a medical emergency and made sure women are terrified to do it and not empowered at having done it after the fact.

Child-rearing, with its joyous but exhausting and endless responsibilities, is absolutely the last priority on our national list. This is obvious to anyone who has contrasted the palatial “birthing suites” where a woman labors to the dismal recovery room she inhabits once her duty is discharged. Even for those of us on the lucky end of the spectrum, the hospital architects have signaled who and what matters in this purportedly mother-loving place.

Motherhood in any circumstances is a challenge. In fact, my own mother used to say it’s the only life sentence without chance at parole you can receive without committing a crime. Low-income motherhood is infinitely harder still. Where we should be in awe of and reaching out to help the women who daily sacrifice to undertake this feat -- we stand in judgement of them and seek to make their difficult task impossible. Only to insist it must be done.

With forced eviction from the hospital after two days, no postpartum support, miserly provisions for food, questionable access to health insurance, inaccessible but absolutely critical flu vaccines, unsafe and failing schools, little or no assistance with childcare -- how could anyone without wealth be up to the task of raising one, let alone, many children in America? Yet, this is a job description of low-income motherhood here. Now we’re contemplating drafting any fertile female who dares to have sex into this position -- and we’re confused that they’re not so eager to apply.

Child-rearing isn’t battle (as much as parents of toddlers and teenagers might insist that it is.) But it is a sort of national front-line, critical to our survival. It is our future, quite literally, at stake. As our lawmakers now shamefully consider shifting from a voluntary service for this task of national importance to conscripting women to serve at their will -- can’t we at least demand the provisions they need to do the job?

Who Pays For These Abortions?

Kirsten Sherk — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Since last spring I’ve been talking to audiences around the United States at screenings of Not Yet Rain, a film that Ipas produced about abortion in Ethiopia. The film follows two young women who have been raped as they attempt to terminate unwanted pregnancies safely. Neither woman has received much education, neither knew they could become pregnant as a result of these encounters, and by the time they learned they qualified for abortion, they had to go to a local hospital for care.

In discussions following the film, I have come to anticipate certain questions, like whether the perpetrators of rape will be prosecuted, what we are doing to increase access to contraception, community education and so forth. But this past week I’ve been thinking particularly about this one:

“Who paid for their abortions?”

In most countries, it is inconceivable that the government health plan would not pay for a legal health-care procedure. When I explain this to audiences here in the United States, they have a hard time wrapping their head around it. Our government is the health care provider of last resort, and in fact has gone out of its way to ensure that poor women do not have access to the same health care as middle-class or wealthy women. What’s more, insurance companies regularly make decisions about what procedures or medications they’ll cover. Americans are used to arbitrary medical rules.

Ethiopia, a large, poor country in East Africa, stands in stark contrast. Ethiopia enacted a new abortion law in 2006, one of the most progressive in Africa. It allows abortion for a range of circumstances, including cases where a woman’s life or health are threatened, for minors or when a woman has been raped. The law was one of a number that the government supported to bring Ethiopia’s laws into alignment with the international agreements it had signed on women’s health and rights.

Let me repeat that: Ethiopia specifically sought to change their laws to bring them in line with women’s rights agreements, not to defy them. This included raising the legal marriage age to 18, imposing harsher penalties on people who commit sexual violence and passing a law that would reduce the excessively high rate of deaths from unsafe abortion. Since then, the government has been educating women, law enforcement agencies, community leaders and health-care providers about the new law. They knew that unless the government made sure that the services were available, the law may as well not exist.

I keep harking back to this as I listen to members of Congress and pundits justify allowing anti-choice members to hold health-care reform hostage to the beliefs of a few, at the expense of many. And I think about the women around the world who pay with much more than money to end an unwanted pregnancy; they knowingly put their lives on the line to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Their injuries make such an impact on health care systems that in the past decade, more than a dozen have liberalized their abortion laws.

These governments know firsthand that safe abortion care is much more cost-efficient than paying to care for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortion – just as they know that it is worth the investment to pay for contraception, for prenatal care and well-baby check-ups. They know that if they don’t pay for safe abortion care, women will pay with their lives.

So if governments that are committed to improving women’s health are willing to pay for safe abortion care, what does that say about the United States?

Globalizing The Culture Wars

Amie Newman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Uganda’s new anti-homosexuality law currently on the table, before Parliament, is an especially vicious piece of legislation that seeks to impose life imprisonment and the death penalty upon those who are involved in “homosexual crimes.”. In this era of growing rights, in the United States, for LGBT individuals, one may be excused for thinking that laws like the one in Uganda are completely unrelated to the Christian, religious right in the U.S., responsible in large part for the onslaught of attacks against LGBT equal rights in this country. However, according to “Globalizing the Culture Wars”, a new report produced by Political Research Associates and released today, laws like the one in Uganda can be seen as the direct result of a campaign by United States neoconservative religious groups to use Africa as another player in the culture wars they have fomented on American soil for many years.

After a rigorous 16-month research and on-the-ground investigative period, Zambian Anglican priest Kapya Kaoma, author of the PRA report, found that U.S. conservatives are working in collusion with African clerics (specifically, the report focuses on Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya.), in three denominations (The Episcopal Church, The United Methodist Church and The Presbyterian Church), to counter any progress mainline U.S. churches are working towards, around LGBT issues, as well as to stir increased homophobia in Africa.

What “LGBT issues” are we talking about?

According to the report, American conservatives, by involving African clerics in these three countries, have managed to almost completely halt recognition by these churches of the full equality of LGBT individuals in the U.S. including the ordination of LGBT clergy. But, of course, this crusade by U.S. conservatives is having even more dire consequences on African soil, leading to a growing and increasingly violent homophobia throughout Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya; violence that is typified in the Ugandan bill before Parliament.

The campaign uses many tactics to engage African clerics to help carry out their anti-gay agenda including presenting churches’ commitments to human rights as “imperialistic” and reminiscent of colonialism, ie, homosexuality is purely a Western-imposed phenomenon. One of the leaders in this fight is the arch-conservative Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). The IRD, maybe unsurprisingly, opposed African liberation struggles, says the report, and works ceaselessly against civil rights for LGBT individuals in the United States. They, along with other U.S. based religious institutions, have provided financial incentives to African clergy in return for strong support of their anti-gay agenda.

Of course, the IRD is by far the only player in these global culture wars. From the report:

Conservative U.S. evangelicals play a strong role in promoting homophobia in Africa by spreading their views and underwriting the widespread conservative educational, social service, and financial infrastructure. Right-wing groups have enticed African religious leaders to reject funding from mainline denominations – which require documentation of how the money is spent – and instead to accept funds form conservatives. This money usually goes to individual bishops without accountability or oversight for how it is used.

The truth is that Conservative leaders in this country, like Pastor Rick Warren, have put tremendous effort into cultivating relationships with African clerics who can help further their strong anti-gay agenda, while simultaneously contributing to the vicious homophobia in African nations.

Pastor Warren has strong ties to Pastor Martin Ssempa, a conservative, religious leader in Uganda who has been the recipient of PEPFAR funds (the U.S. AIDS plan which distributes funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment) and is extremely vocal and active about his homophobic beliefs. There are many churches in Uganda, and other African nations, that are the direct recipients of U.S. federal funding via PEPFAR, used to implement clear religious agendas (vocally supported by Pastor Warren) such as requirements for spending a share of funding on abstinence-until-marriage.

According to the blog Box Car Bulletin, Pastor Ssempa played a “prominent role” in the (false) accusations that a Ugandan megachurch pastor named Robert Kayanja was gay. These accusations led to the kidnap and torture of one of Kayanja’s personal aides.

In Jeff Sharlet’s book, “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” (named for a clandestine organization of hard-core U.S. fundamentalist leaders Sharlet uncovers and infiltrates), this highly secretive organization calls Ugandan President Museveni, the man under whose watch the insidious, horrific anti-gay Ugandan legislation has been offered, “their man in Uganda” and “a good friend” of The Family.

The blog Truth Wins Out reports that, “In March [of 2009], American anti-gay activists traveled to Uganda for a conference that pledged to “wipe out” homosexuality. Seven months later, a draconian bill has been introduced that pledges to make good on this threat.”

Kaoma implores readers to take action knowing now the clear connection between American religious leaders and the hateful on-the-ground results in Africa:

We need to stand up against the U.S. Christian Right peddling homophobia in Africa," said Kaoma, who in recent weeks asked U.S. evangelist Rick Warren to denounce the bill and distance himself from its supporters. "I heard church people in Uganda say they would go door to door to root out LGBT people and now our brothers and sisters are being further targeted by proposed legislation criminalizing them and threatening them with death. The scapegoating must stop.

There is a web of entanglement between U.S. evangelicals, fundamentalists, conservatives and African clergy that exists to maintain a power structure and a severe homophobic agenda that serves these hard-core religious groups. The report ends with a list of recommendations that includes exposing and confronting U.S. religious conservatives (like Pastor Rick Warren) who foment homophobia in Africa, exposing the financial ties between African conservatives and various American institutions (like our very own federal government), and maybe most importantly supporting African activists and scholars to lead the struggle for LGBT rights and the study of sexuality in Africa.

The U.S. neo-conservative movement is working tirelessly to push a religious agenda in Africa that serves their own purposes. As we continue the fight for LGBT rights in our own country, the report reminds us that it is critical we use our peripheral vision to see the bigger picture if we are to truly win the war against religious evangelicalism’s homophobia, and not just individual battles.