Attacks on Family Planning and Abortion Are Attacks on Children: A Guest Editorial

The Religious Institute co-founder and current Advisory Committee member, Rev. Dr. Larry Greenfield, shared with me this piece he wrote for Protestants on the Common Good, on the current attacks on women's health services. I liked it so much that I asked him if I could share it with you:

“Re-introducing Corporal Punishment”

As I approach my seventieth birthday, I’m spending more time remembering how fortunate I was to have been raised in a loving family, where, as an only child, I was treated as something special.

For health reasons, my mother was explicitly told not to risk what would likely be another unsuccessful pregnancy. But throwing caution to the wind, and desperately wanting to have a child of their own, mom and dad gave it one more try.

My birth was treated, literally, as a gift from God.

Well, almost all the time. The exceptions, of course, had to do with those occasions in which I seriously misbehaved – that is, those times when I caused my parents to question whether the divine gift had a good bit of the devil’s contribution in the mix.

When that happened – and it had to be a very serious offense to cause this particular punishment – the razor strap came out (my dad was a barber at a time when facial shaves were a regular feature of his trade) and I was given a truly stinging whipping.

That corporal punishment I still see, all these years later, as an exception, a deviation from, my parents’ love. Even then I recognized that their anger against me caused them to draw on the worst parts of their otherwise compassionate and caring personalities. (And I can only hope that my own children recognize that when I inflicted corporal punishment on them, it was a similar departure from who I was as the father who loved them.)

I have the sense that my parents, at that time, weren’t exceptional in reverting to corporal punishment when angry with a child’s behavior. As far as I can tell, it was the norm.

But that started changing when more and more parents over time heard about, read, and took to heart what Dr. Benjamin Spock proposed in his book “Baby and Child Care” (1946) and other writings: be verbal not physical in disciplining the child, and all within the context of expressing love, even if it had to be tough love.

Now twenty-nine countries outlaw corporal punishment in the home, twenty-two of them in Europe. In the United States it remains legal, but here too there are limits to what is acceptable physical punishment.

I can see that transformation operating in the way my own grandchildren are being raised.

It has taken decades to achieve, but even here in the U.S. we’ve changed.

Or have we? Might it be that we’ve only changed the way we administer the corporal punishment?

Charles Blow, columnist for the New York Times, recently (8/27/11) made that case in a “striking” (but non-corporal) way.

He referred to a Guttmacher Institute report that indicated unintended pregnancies have increased 50% since 1994, yet politicians are passing laws to restrict abortion at a record pace: 80 this year, compared to 23 in 2010 – more than three times as many so far this year compared to all of last year.

What has this got to do with corporal punishment, when supposedly it is the mother (almost never the father) that is being punished for her sexual behavior? Mr. Blow answers: “Even if you follow a primitive religious concept of punishment for sex, as many on the right seem to do, you must at some point acknowledge that it is the child, not the parent, who will be punished most by our current policies that increasingly advocate for “unborn children” but fall silent for those outside the womb.”

(While Mr. Blow doesn’t mention it, there is an irony that some of the anti-choice legislation includes the de-funding of Planned Parenthood, which often provides the contraceptive education and resources that reduces the number unplanned pregnancies, and thereby ultimately diminishes the likelihood of neglect and abuse of unintended children.)

But it isn’t just in the area of sexuality where we’ve found new ways of inflicting physical harm on children. Mr. Blow also quotes from a new report of the Annie E. Casey Foundation: “the official child poverty rate, which is a conservative measure of economic hardship, increased 18 percent between 2000 – 2009.” (Remember that many years in that decade were considered periods of abundance.)

And if that weren’t enough, Mr. Blow draws from a U.S. Department of Agriculture study that “the number of children facing food insecurity in 2009 soared to nearly one in four.” Then there is also an ABC News report that “49 percent of all children born in this [United States] country are born to families who receive food supplements from the federal Women, Infants and Children assistance program.”

What is the consequence of that kind of malnutrition brought on by child poverty and child hunger? What is the corporal punishment that is being inflicted?

Delayed growth and motor development. Lower I.Q.’s. Severe behavior problems. Attention deficit hyperactivity. Deficient learning capacities. Lower educational achievement. The list goes on and on.

All that punishment inflicted against children for the sin of being born into families guilty of being poor.

Members of the Republican party, as well as many Democrats and Independents, express what seems to be genuine concern about the national debt that today’s children will have to bear as adults. But in their 2012 budget proposal the Republicans, in particular, want to reduce spending for nutritional programs. Mr. Blow comments: “They want to hold the line on tax breaks for the wealthy, not paying attention to the fact that our growing income inequality, which could be reversed, continues to foster developmental inequality [among children], which is almost impossible to reverse.”

Since in this country we don’t have laws condemning the old forms of parental corporal punishment, there’s probably no chance of passing legislation that would assign some form of appropriate punishment to politicians and members of society-at-large who engage in this kind of neglect and abuse of our nation’s children.

But couldn’t those of us in the Christian community at least take guidance from the procedure Jesus recommended to his church when one member sinned against another? He instructed (see Matthew 18: 15-17) that if one fails to get the attention and confession of the offender in a face-to-face meeting, the circle of witnesses ought to be widened, and, failing that, the offense ought to be brought to the whole community for judgment and then, finally, punishment.

That punishment apparently was exclusion from the community of faith. Maybe that’s what the church today needs to do with its child neglectors and abusers in public office.

And, of course, the electorate could do something similar when it’s time again to choose its leaders.

HR 3 Violates Women's Moral Agency: Senate, Just Say No

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most restrictive federal abortion law yet,HR 3, “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. As people of faith, we must speak out to assure that the Senate rejects its draconian measures.

According to the National Network of Abortion Funding:

"If enacted, this bill would have a devastating impact on millions of women and families. Every woman, whether she gets her health care through a safety-net program like Medicaid or private health insurance, deserves to make her own decision about whether and when to have a baby.


HR 3 would make permanent bans on federal funding of abortion, bans that Congress should eliminate in the interest of fairness and women’s health. “Every single day we talk to women who have been denied the ability to make their own decisions because of these bans on abortion coverage,” says Stephanie Poggi, Executive Director of the Network.


HR3 reinforces health disparities by withholding abortion care from low-income women, women of color, and immigrant women. Because of racial inequalities in the United States , women of color are more likely to use Medicaid for their health care, and bear the burden of funding bans.


In addition to permanently banning the use of federal funds in Medicaid and other federal health programs, the bill would deny once again “home rule” to the District of Columbia to use its own money to pay for abortion care for women in need, prohibit abortion coverage in the new health care exchanges set to launch by 2014, and drive up the cost of health insurance by denying tax credits to individuals and small businesses that purchase insurance plans that include abortion coverage. The bill shows complete disregard for a woman’s health by denying funding even when continuing a pregnancy could lead to paralysis or interfere with cancer treatment."

As a faith leader, I seek to create a world where abortion is safe, legal, rare, AND accessible. HR 3 will deny women the right to make their own moral decisions about their own personal circumstances. Nothing in HR 3 will promote moral decision-making or flourishing families. I pray the U.S. Senate and the President "just say no."

Dear GOP: Rape is Rape. No Force Needed.

Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) and 173 co-sponsors introduced a heinous bill, "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."

It goes further than any other previous legislative proposal to make abortion less accessible, less available, especially to low income women. Jessica Arons from the Center for American Progress presents a comprehensive review of what's so wrong with this legislation at www.rhrealitycheck.org

There are so many reasons to oppose this bill, but it's the provision that redefines rape that has me the most upset. For decades now, there has been an agreement even by the most anti-choice legislators that poor women who become pregnant because of rape or incest should have access to abortion services.

Rep. Smith and his friends have now decided that only women who are victims of "force-able rape" would be "worthy" of being able to have an abortion. Not women who were coerced, not women who are minors and victims of statutory rapes, not women who were drugged -- just those who are forced.

This issue isn't just political to me, it's personal. I was date raped twice as a young woman. There were no guns or knives --just men who didn't listen as I yelled "no" and went ahead anyway. Back in the mid 70's, there wasn't a term for date rape; in fact, I had several older women at the time tell me that there wasn't anything to be done, it just happened some time to women who were alone with men who didn't listen. I was fortunate that I didn't become pregnant either time -- and I've been happy that on today's high school and college campuses young people are routinely taught about date rape and that "no means no."

And so, I am furious that Rep. Smith has decided that once again it's not rape unless there's force involved. I'd like the GOP to listen to those of us who are survivors who will tell them that the only definition of rape is sex without consent of both partners - no adjectives involved.

Matters of Life and Death

The Washington Post asked its On Faith panel this week to reflect on a Catholic hospital's decision to not offer sterilizations and the excommunication of a nun who had courageously helped a woman who was dying having an abortion that saved her life.

You can read my response and other panel member's reactions here:

www.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/index.html

Most of the comments that follow my blog are predictably anti-abortion and feel to me that they miss the point of my column. I support the rights of individual providers to not perform services that they find morally objectionable as long as they refer women to the safe and legal services they need. Supporting reproductive justice is not just about legal services, it's also about safe services as illustrated so dramatically about the news of an unregulated provider in Pennsylvania.

I'd love you to leave a comment at the Washington Post blog to support women's rights to legal, safe, and accessible reproductive health services, regardless of where they live.

Honoring Roe v. Wade, Abortion Providers, and Women's Lives

Saturday is the 38th Anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade Decision.

I had the good fortune to attend the Connecticut Coalition for Choice dinner last night, marking the Roe anniversary and honoring the doctors who perform safe and legal abortions to women in Connecticut.

The dinner included an award to Dr. Leroy Carhart, one of the nation's few doctors who perform abortions in later pregnancies. Dr. Carhart worked closely with Dr. George Tiller, the doctor who was murdered as he attended church in 2009, and told us that they had promised each other that if something happened, the other would continue the work. Dr. Carhart shared some of the heartbreaking stories of the women he serves. He told us that yes, he is cautious about his security, but he is not afraid, and that he believes in saving women's lives and futures, he is doing God's work.

I think so too.

The Reverend Maria LaSala, minister at the First Presbyterian Church in New Haven, offered the Benediction. I was deeply moved by her words, and asked her for permission to share them with you. She prayed,


"Let us remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure that women of all ages, races, and economic realities, have the right to legal, safe, and affordable abortion.

Let us remain steadfast in our support of the doctors, nurses, and health center staff who, morning by morning and day by day, affirm women’s choices to terminate a pregnancy and provide the necessary medical procedures to keep women healthy and strong.

Let us remain steadfast in our commitment to honor the choices that women who face unwanted and unplanned pregnancies make, knowing that any decision concerning women’s reproductive health is never easy.

On this night, let us remember Dr. George Tiller, Dr. Bernard Slepian, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett and John Sanderson, and all those who lost their lives or were injured due to abortion related violence. On this night we give thanks for Dr. Carhart, whose perseverance and commitment to proving abortions in the face of ongoing threats and dangers, is ever a blessing. We ask that God watch over all those who work in women’s health care centers, that no harm might come to them.

And now, may the love and compassion of the Holiest of Holies surround us. May the strength of all that is holy be with us."

On this 38th anniversary of Roe, may it indeed be so.

What The Election May Mean For Sexual Justice--Better Than We Think?

I'm sure your email box is filled, like mine is, with requests for funds from progressive organizations, telling you how dire the next two years will be.

Yes, I personally was disappointed in the drubbing the Democrats took in the House of Representatives (as an organization, the Religious Institute does not take sides in election contests), but I also was heartened by some of what didn't happen.

Most of the Tea Party stars did not get elected. Colorado voters turned down a pernicious anti-abortion amendment to their state constitution by a 3 to 1 majority. The National Organization for Marriage failed in their efforts in all but Iowa.

Four pro-marriage equality people were elected Governors, putting New York, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland in a position to affirm marriage for same sex couples in the next few years. The fourth openly gay member of the House of Representatives was elected.

I'm not naive about the changes in the House or the leadership of anti-choice Representative John Boehner. But I am reminding myself that it was a Democratic House passed the Stupak amendment.

So, I'm feeling grateful today that the election didn't turn out much worse...and that the 2010 election is finally over. Let's hope that together we can continue to advance sexual and reproductive justice over the next two years.

Guess you can call me an optimist.

Newsweek on Abortion: Only Half the Story

This article appears in today's Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/236506 It's major points are that young people don't care enough about abortion rights and that the pro-choice movement needs to be begin to address the "moral complexity" of abortion.

Here's the letter I just sent them:

To the editor:

Your article on supportive attitudes about abortion rights among young people only tells part of the story. Yes, it's difficult for some people born a decade after Roe to conceive abortion being illegal, but my experience with young women activists is not represented in your article. In fact, your writer chose not to interview the many organizations headed by young women working on abortion rights.

But more concerning to me as a minister who runs an organization of more than 5000 religious leaders committed to sexual justice, are the assertions that the pro-choice movement has ignored the moral complexities of abortion. Religious leaders have been in the forefront of the movement for abortion rights for more than fifty years. The Clergy Consultation Service in the 1960's and 1970's were among the first to advocate for repeal of abortion laws. More than thirty years ago, many religious denominations passed courageous resolutions in support of women's moral agency and their right to a safe and legal abortion. Our "Open Letter to Religious Leaders On Abortion As a Moral Decision" has been endorsed by more than 1100 ordained clergy, and calls for a world where abortion is safe, legal, accessible, and rare. Rather than ignore the moral complexities, we call on leaders of all faiths to prepare themselves to support women compassionately as they also affirm women as moral agents who have the capacity, right, and responsibility to make their own decisions about unintended pregnancies.

Rev. Debra W. Haffner

Criminal Miscarriage or Miscarriage of Justice?

Did you know that the state of Utah has just passed legislation (waiting for the Governor's signature) that criminalizes some miscarriages?

I wrote about this on the Huffington Post on Friday:

www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/criminal-miscarriage-or-m-b-478607.html

The comments are fascinating, and I'd love you to join that discussion.

To the person who asked, "are they trying to create tests to overturn Roe?"

Uh, yes. Not just in Utah, but in states across the country.

I hope you're speaking out for reproductive justice.

Sex and the Super Bowl: Tell CBS ENOUGH

It's one week to the Super Bowl.

You've probably heard already that CBS has accepted $2.8 million from Focus on the Family to run an anti-abortion ad during the most-watched television event of the year. Focus and CBS are trying to dress it up, saying the ad is more a human interest story than an advocacy ad.

Sounds like a wolf in sheep's clothing to me. Although the ad is not available for preview, its storyline is. Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother talk about the supposed circumstances of his birth in 1987. Mrs. Tebow's health was threatened in her late second trimester, and she alleges that medical professionals advised her to have an abortion. She refused...and 23 years later, the world is blessed to have her outstanding football player son.

The story may not be true. The Center for Law and Reproductive Policy says that Mrs. Tebow, who lived in the Philippines at the time, could not have been offered a legal abortion, because it was (and remains) illegal in that country.

But the veracity of the story is only a side point. The fact is that the ad clearly implies that Mrs. Tebow made the right choice, the only moral choice. Ironically, Mrs. Tebow made a CHOICE, something that the anti-abortion Focus on the Family would take away from other women.

The ad will imply that there is one right choice, one moral choice, one choice that is supported by people of faith. That's why the Religious Institute created a letter from national religious leaders opposing it. You can read it here.

Until last week, CBS said it had a policy against advocacy ads. In the past, it has rejected ads from the United Church of Christ on full inclusion, moveon.org, PETA, and others as being too controversial. Just last week, it rejected an ad from a gay dating site as being too controversial for the Super Bowl. Somehow CBS doesn't seem to care that a lot of us find the ubiquitous ads for Erectile Dysfunction or the scantily dressed women in so many of their ads offensive as well.
I believe in using television for "teachable moments" with my children -- but really, does any parent need them during a football game?

There's still a chance to tell CBS to JUST SAY NO. Abortion is surely a serious issue that can be debated on public affairs programs, but NOT during the Super Bowl. To those who say that pro-choice advocates should develop their own ad, the reality is that most of those organizations, if they had $2.8 million lying around, would devote it to providing services to women, not on a 30- second TV spot.

Both the Women's Media Center and NARAL have petitions on their websites you can sign. We still have a week to tell CBS ENOUGH. Join me.

Trust Women: Why 37 years later, I'm still celebrating Roe v. Wade

I'm happy to support NARAL's Blog for Choice Day.

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I was 18 years old, a college freshman, and a virgin when Roe was decided, but I knew it was important.

I can still picture me walking down High Street in Middletown, CT when I heard the news. I quickly thought back to my college friend who we had arranged to go to New York City earlier that year, because abortions were legal there. I thought about the girl in my high school biology class who dropped out of school when she found out she was pregnant. I thought about the story my grandmother had told me about her illegal abortion in the thirties.

In those 37 years, I've counseled hundreds if not thousands of women faced with unplanned pregnancies. I helped write a manual on pregnancy options counseling in the late 1970's. As the Director of Counseling at Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington in the early 80's, I sat with hundreds of women facing unplanned pregnancies. Sometimes they were the daughters of anti-abortion protesters at our clinics, not knowing where else to turn.

I think about all of my friends, relatives, students who have chosen abortions after soul searching. One in three women in America have been there. One in three -- someone you know.

I think about the women and men I've counseled since I've entered the ministry: the couple with the 20 week pregnancy who finds out that her very wanted fetus has a devastating illness; the pregnant 13 year old with the mental illness and her mother; the woman who after infertility treatment finds out she has three live embryos and knows she can only take care of two.

Each of them had to decide for themselves what was right in their very own particular life situations.

I trust women because I believe they have the moral agency to make those decisions.

And that it's not ever the government's role to make these most intimate decisions in people's lives.

My 18 year old self was overjoyed to learn about the Roe decision. I was naive then to think that the issue was settled once and for all.

My 55 year self sadly knows differently. But, affirms how important it was then...and is today.

Secretary of State Clinton: Women's Health is Integral To International Security

Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton gave a strong and compelling speech this past Friday on the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development. I had the honor of being invited to the speech, but weather and a prior commitment kept me away. I understand the participants were a who's who of the sexual and reproductive rights movement.

You can watch the speech yourself here: http://www.icpd2015.org/ or read the transcript at http://bit.ly/6lLv7B

She recommitted the United States to the program of action, and after listing out the horrifying statistics on maternal mortality around the world, said, "these numbers are not only grim, but after 15 years, they are intolerable. If we believe that human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights, then we cannot accept the ongoing marginalization of half the world's population. We cannot accept it morally, politically, socially, or economically." She said that the Obama administration is "integrating women's issues as key elements of our foreign policy agenda" and "rededicating ourselves to the global efforts to improve reproductive health for women and girls....we have pledged new funding, new programs, and a renewed commitment to achieve Millennium Development Goal Five, namely a three fourths reduction in global maternal mortality and universal access to reproductive health." She also said that more U.S. funding is on the way to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which was denied funding under the Bush administration. And she talked about U.S. supported programs integrating maternal health services, family planning, and HIV/AIDS screening and treatment -- something that I've been advocating for for more than two decades and is clearly overdue.

It was a good, compelling speech, and heart warming for those of us who worked on the Cairo conference and platform and have been dismayed during the past administration how it was ignored. But, I was also struck by what it didn't include: a call for safe and legal abortion for the world's women. I also found it telling that she did not ever use the words "sexual and reproductive health" together, words that were hard won at the Cairo conference to expand the focus of programs. She instead talked about reproductive health care and family planning services as a basic right. Is the Obama administration retreating on the sexual health and rights framework supported during the Clinton years?

It's a question I promise to pursue in the coming weeks with Administration officials.

Those concerns notwithstanding, it was thrilling to hear our country once again go on record supporting women's health, women's rights, and women's lives.

Want to get involved? Join the Religious Institute's Rachel Sabbath Initiative. Go to our web site for more information.

Tell the Senate: No Further Restrictions on Abortion In Health Care Reform

I just can't write another blog this morning on abortion in health care reform. Senators Nelson and Hatch introduced the Senate version of the Stupak amendment, which if passed, will mean that increased abortion restrictions will be part of health care reform if passed. It's likely to be voted on today. As I've written here and on Huffington Post, it puts pro-choice advocates in an impossible position of having to choose between supporting health care reform and access to abortion services.

The Religious Institute joined twelve other religious organizations in sending a letter to the Senate. I'm reprinting it below. I don't think I have anything new to say -- except that if you haven't called your Senator, NOW is the time to do so.

Here's the letter:

The undersigned religious and religiously affiliated organizations urge the Senate to support comprehensive, quality health care reform that maintains the current Senate language on abortion services.

We believe that it is our social and moral obligation to ensure access to high quality comprehensive health care services at every stage in an individual’s life. Reforming the health care system in a way that guarantees affordable and accessible care for all is not simply a good idea—it is necessary for the well-being of all people in our nation.

The passage of meaningful health reform legislation will make significant strides toward accomplishing the important goal of access to health care for all. Unfortunately, the House-passed version of health reform includes language that imposes significant new restrictions on access to abortion services. This provision would result in women losing health coverage they currently have, an unfortunate contradiction to the basic guiding principle of health care reform. Providing affordable, accessible health care to all Americans is a moral imperative that unites Americans of many faith traditions. The selective withdrawal of critical health coverage from women is both a violation of this imperative and a betrayal of the public good.

The use of this legislation to advance new restrictions on abortion services that surpass those in current law will serve only to derail this important bill. The Senate bill is already abortion neutral, an appropriate reflection of the fact that it is intended to serve Americans of many diverse religious and moral views. The bill includes compromise language that maintains current law, prohibiting federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services, while still allowing women the option to use their own private funds to pay for abortion care. American families should have the opportunity to choose health coverage that reflects their own values and medical needs, a principle that should not be sacrificed in service of any political agenda.

We urge the Senate to support meaningful health reform that maintains the compromise language on abortion services currently in the bill.

Respectfully,

Catholics for Choice
Disciples Justice Action Center
The Episcopal Church
Jewish Women International
NA’AMAT USA
National Council of Jewish Women
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
The Religious Institute
Union of Reform Judaism
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church-General Board of Church and Society
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Religious Institute Condemns "Manhattan Declaration" As Unjust and Not Faithful

This morning the Religious Institute released the following statement in response to the Manhattan Declaration, a statement endorsed by Catholic Bishops and Religious Right Leaders Opposing Abortion and LGBT rights.

The Manhattan Declaration, endorsed by those who are most conservative in America's religious life, is once again a political call against women’s moral agency and the rights of lesbian and gay persons dressed up in religious language. These religious leaders would have us believe that they would be forced to provide abortions or bless same sex marriages against their religious principles when these rights are available. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Religious leaders across the spectrum support religious freedom, the right of each religion to determine its own rites and practices, and freedom of the pulpit. Mainstream and progressive religious leaders differ though in our belief that no single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on abortion or LGBT equality, nor should government take sides on religious differences. We oppose any attempt to make specific religious doctrine concerning the rights of women and LGBT persons the law for all Americans.

Ten years ago, a multifaith group of religious leaders issued the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, a 500-word call for sexual justice that affirmed full inclusion of women and LGBT persons and a faith based commitment to reproductive rights. Today, the Religious Declaration has been endorsed by more than 3,300 religious leaders, including denomination and seminary presidents, from more than 50 faith traditions. Its positions on reproductive justice and LGBT equality reflect the majority opinions of American citizens, faithful and secular alike. Neither the Manhattan Declaration, nor the handful of Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders who created it, speak for most Christians, much less people of other faiths.

Thoughts about Abortion and Health Care Reform After a Day in the Senate

I spent yesterday at the U.S. Senate with more than 100 advocates for reproductive health and health care reform. We heard from Senators Boxer, Dodd, Murray, and others about how the Senate would likely address the Stupak restrictions placed on the House health care bill. It was exciting to see many of the heroes of the reproductive justice movement in one place, and even more exciting to be with a large number of young women who are organizing in their communities.

The Senate health care bill was finally released last night, and it doesn't include any further restrictions on coverage for abortion -- as the President promised. But, let's not forget that neither did the House bill until two weeks ago.

So, now it's your turn. On December 2nd, there will be a national day of action at the U.S. Senate to assure that health care reform is not passed at the expense of women's reproductive rights. You can find out more here.

But, we are also asking you to get your congregations involved. We've posted a "toolkit", jointly developed by many faith-based organizations, on the Stupak amendment at our website. We're happy to be one of the contributors, and hope you'll check it out.

From my perspective, as those of you who have been reading my blogs on health care reform for months know, is that low income women should have access to abortion services as a covered medical service. I want to see the Hyde amendment repealed; yesterday, Senator Boxer promised she would soon introduce such a bill. But, because of my commitment to health care reform, I, like many other pro-choice people, are willing to agree to support health care reform that just doesn't take rights or services away from women who currently have them.

We should ask for and accept nothing less.

I hope you'll get involved.

Abortion and Health Care Reform: What Would Solomon Do?

From my Huffington Post article yesterday:

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God grants King Solomon "a wise and discerning mind," so that he would have "discernment in dispensing justice." (1 Kings 3:16-28)

What follows from there is a complex story of two women, mothers of two similarly aged boy children, one of whom has died in the middle of the night. One of the women says her son is alive, and that the other has tricked her by placing the dead child in her arms. The other woman says, "No, the live one is my son, and the dead one is yours." They argue incessantly before the king.

Solomon steps forward and asks for a sword. To find the true mother, he exclaims, "Cut the live child in two, and give half to one and half to the other." The real mother, "overcome with compassion for her son," reveals herself by saying, "Give her the child; only don't kill it." The other, revealing her deception, says, "Cut it in two."

I fear that those of us who support health care reform and reproductive justice for women are being put in the position of the real mother. We know that millions of Americans will benefit from health care reform, but we are being asked by some to sacrifice our own rights in order for a reform bill to pass. Surely that is the position many House Democrats found themselves in last week......

To read the rest, go to www.huffingtonpost.com/rev_debra_haffner/

Religious Leaders Speak Out Against Stupak

The Religious Institute, along with Catholics for Choice, Planned Parenthood's Clergy Network, and RCRC, released this joint statement yesterday on the passage of the Stupak Amendment in the health care reform bill. It's also available at our web site, www.religiousinstitute.org/news. Please help us get the word out! And contact your Senator and the White House to ask that it NOT be included in the final bill. We cannot let women's health care be compromised this way.


JOINT STATEMENT OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS ON STUPAK AMENDMENT

Catholics for Choice, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Clergy Network, the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice, and the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing represent more than ten thousand religious leaders and tens of thousands of people of faith who believe that abortion must be safe, legal, and accessible. We come together to condemn the passage of the Stupak amendment which, if passed by the Senate, will effectively deny coverage for abortion services to women covered by the new federal health care plan. We are appalled that religious leaders intervened to impose their specific religious doctrine into health care reform, not recognizing that women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their own faith in making the decision as to whether or not abortion is appropriate in their specific circumstances. Further, we decry those who sought to use abortion as a way to scuttle much-needed health care reform. We call on the President and the United States Senate to ensure that the final bill that passes does not include any specific prohibition on the use of federal funds for reproductive health care services. We pray for a renewed commitment to relational and reproductive justice for all.

Angry But Not Surprised About Stupak

I want to be happy that the House passed its version of Health Care Reform. Really. I believe so strongly about making health care a right not a privilege.

But the House version included a last minute amendment -- the Pitt-Stupak amendment -- which if included in the final law, will basically mean that any insurance company who wants to be part of the federal program will not be able to include abortion as a covered service. If passed, it's the greatest restriction on women's access to abortion since the Hyde Amendment passed more than two decades ago.

I feel betrayed. Betrayed by the 64 Democrats who voted for it. Betrayed by Nancy Pelosi who let it be brought to the floor. Betrayed by those in the pro-choice community who asked too early for us to get behind the Capps amendment which would have continued to deny women who needed abortion coverage in the public option but was 'abortion neutral'. We gave up too much ground too soon. And angry that our pro-choice President was willing to go along with trading the rights of women to get anti-choice legislators to go along with it, despite the fact that not a single Republican actually voted yes on health care reform.

I can't say that I'm surprised. I've been writing for more than the past two years about my concern about religious leaders who call themselves progressive but don't support LGBT rights or the rights of women to make their own decisions about their pregnancies. I've continually called for sexual justice to be an integral part of a progressive religious agenda. I've been asked far too many times to stop raising these issues, to recognize that they are divisive to a common ground agenda, that reaching out to Catholics and evangelical leaders is more important than working for justice to LGBT persons and women. I can't count how many times I've written here -- and in other articles -- that women's and LGBT's lives shouldn't be traded for political gains.

Some of those so-called progressive folks helped deliver health care reform in the House -- but they did it at the expense of hundreds of thousands of women who will now have even a more difficult time accessing safe abortion services. Removing abortion from covered insurance plans won't keep women from having abortions -- it will just mean that they happen later in pregnancies as women struggle to find the money to pay for them -- or they will resort once again to unsafe procedures.

The bottom line: women's lives got buried under common ground on Saturday night. And to those who said the religious right was dead, I wish it felt better to say, "I told you so."

Abortion and Marriage Equality: I'm Not Ready To Make Nice

Since yesterday morning when I read about Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey, I've kept hearing this lyric from the Dixie Chicks song in my head:


I'm not ready to make nice
I'm not ready to back down
I'm still mad as hell and
I don't have time to go round and round and round


It got louder when I read a piece in the New York Times about the Democratic leadership appearing to be ready to agree that health care reform will assure that any "public option is a pro-life option."

It is profoundly unjust when the private moral choices of women and lesbian and gay couples are subject to majority vote and political trading. There can be no common ground when votes are allowed to strip people of their existing rights.

Imagine if people could have voted to overturn civil rights legislation in their states in the 1960's. Imagine if slavery had been put up for referendum in the south. Imagine allowing politicians to decide if organ transplants or do not resuscitate orders could be available for your loved ones. Marriage equality -- or any recognition of the civil rights of a minority group -- should not be eligible for public referendum.

Even victories like in Washington State feel hollow when they are based on "separate but equal."

We can not cede people's rights or lives to common ground. As people of faith committed to sexual justice, we must speak only for the higher ground. People's lives are at stake. Join US.

Contraception and Legal Abortions Save Women's Lives Globally: Speak Out

Yesterday, I was at a meeting of the United Nations Foundation. The Religious Institute is a new grantee of the UN Foundation and will be developing a new initiative to engage U.S. religious leaders and people of faith in advocating for international sexual and reproductive health.

I was inspired by the other grantees' projects and commitments.

I was reminded again this morning why this work is so important. The Guttmacher Institute has published a new study, "Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress." Read it here at http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/10/13/index.html

In brief, the study found that global contraceptive use is contributing to a significant decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies, and thus a decline in the number of abortions. The unintended pregnancy rate declined from 69 per 1000 in 1995 to 55 per 1000 in 2008. That's still too high, but provides clear evidence that there must be more U.S. and global support for family planning programs. And not surprisingly, Guttmacher found evidence that abortion rates fall when unintended pregnancies go down.

It's a wonder, then, that anti-abortion groups aren't working FOR contraception rather than against it.

But more, they need to know that making abortion illegal or having it highly restricted does NOT decrease the number of abortions. In a somewhat surprising funding, Guttmacher discovered that abortion occurs at roughly equal rates regardless of its legal status.

There is a difference, though: where abortion is illegal, women die. To be more precise, an estimated 70,000 women DIE each year from unsafe abortions, and an additional five million experience serious medical effects.

EVERY ONE OF THOSE 70,000 WOMEN'S DEATH IS PREVENTABLE through safe and legal abortion services and high quality, post-abortion medical care.

I don't see how any anti-abortion advocate could dare to use the term "pro-life" in the face of these statistics.

Outraged? Get involved. If you are a religious leader, endorse our Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion As A Moral Decision. If you are a person of faith, join our newsletter list to find out more about the plans we have for an "International Women's Health Sabbath" later this fall. Write the White House and Congress about your support for international family planning. Speak out.

To Anti-Choice Religious Leaders: What Happened to Truth Telling?

To the Christian Post, LifeNews.Com, California Catholic Daily, and those tons of smaller anti-abortion bloggers:

I understand that people of faith disagree about abortion. I understand that you would like abortion to be illegal once again and unavailable in all circumstances.

We've been on other sides of this issue for a long time.

I understand, then, why you were upset that more than 1,100 clergy and religious leaders endorsed the Religious Institute's Open Letter on Abortion as a Moral Decision.

And that you didn't like that we sent that out through Religion News Service and to members of the Senate, calling for them not to add further restrictions on women's access to abortion in health care reform.

What I don't understand, though, is why you distorted our press release and claimed that we were asking for taxpayer-funded abortions in the health care reform bill, rather than that existing plans that cover abortion services be allowed to continue to do so.

Moreover, you distorted our press release to say that denominations had endorsed the Open Letter, when it can only be endorsed by individual clergy, acting out of their personal faith commitments. Perhaps you wanted to create issues in denominations that have their own fault lines over choice?

And the words you use to describe the Religious Institute -- a "so called" organization "claiming to represent" more than 4900 clergy and other religious leaders are designed to disparage our leadership and organization. I invite you to learn more about our very real organization and the efforts we support.

The health care reform debate has been marred enough by the egregious lying of those who oppose it, from made-up death panels to using women's reproductive health access as a pawn to make it more divisive. Surely you don't have to lie to find something to disagree with us about.

I call you to our shared Scriptural commitment to truth telling. You do remember those passages, don't you?