This summer, I celebrated my 37th year working in sexual and reproductive health and rights. My very first publication in the field was a 1976 pamphlet for the Population Institute titled, “Does Your Campus Offer Birth Control?”aimed at extending contraceptive services to college students. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court had affirmed family planning for unmarried women, and more and more universities were recognizing that their health services needed to include prescribing contraceptives. Indeed, during my time at Wesleyan University, I had helped organize the movement to provide gynecological services at this previously all male school.
I never would have predicted that nearly four decades later that birth control would once again be controversial. After all, nine in ten heterosexually active women use family planning, nine in ten Americans believe that birth control use is morally acceptable , and three quarters of voters in 2012 agree that “we should do everything we can to make sure that people who want to use prescription birth control have affordable access to it.”
Yet, during the past two years, there have been efforts to pass so called “Personhood Amendments” that would criminalize hormonal methods of birth control, the federal government almost closed down because of an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, and contraceptive coverage in health care reform is being challenged by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, calling its inclusion an attack on their “religious liberty.” Given these efforts, coupled with increased restrictions on abortion and politicians’ ridiculous statements on how pregnancy does and doesn’t occur, terming this a “war on women” seems all too apt.
I am proud to tell you that this morning, 38 nationally recognized religious leaders are joining me in affirming safe, affordable, accessible, and comprehensive family planning services. They include current and past heads of denominations, such the Rev. Geoffrey A. Black (United Church of Christ), the Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson (Reformed Church in America), the Rev. Peter Morales (Unitarian Universalist Association), and the Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins (Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)); presidents of seminaries such as Dr. Philip A. Amerson (Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary), the Rev. Dr. Serene Jones (Union Theological Seminary), and The Very Rev. Katherine Ragsdale (Episcopal Divinity School); organizational heads such as Dr. Richard Cizik (the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good), the Rev. Harry Knox (Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice), and Jon O'Brien (Catholics for Choice); and nationally recognized theologians such as the Rev. Dr. Tony Campolo, the Rev. Dr. Larry Greenfield, and Dr. Mary Hunt. They have all endorsed the Religious Institute’s new “Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Family Planning” [www.religiousinstitute.org/olfp]
The Open Letter was developed at a Religious Institute colloquium held this spring. A dozen Christian (mainline, Evangelical, and Roman Catholic), Jewish, and Muslim theologians created the Open Letter in a day of dialog and discussion. They affirmed that, “in a just world, all people would have equal access to contraception. The denial of family planning services effectively translates into coercive childbearing is an insult to human dignity.” They called on hospitals and health services, regardless of religious affiliation, to provide or refer to contraceptive services, and reminded those who would oppose such services, that “no single faith can claim final moral authority in domestic or international discourse.” They urged religious leaders to “advocate for increased U.S. financial support for domestic and global family planning services”.
There is nothing new about religious leaders supporting family planning. In 1929, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform Judaism) and in 1930, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion passed the first religious organization policies supporting it. Today, at least 14 major denominations, including the Church of the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) (http://religiousinstitute.org/statement/birth-control), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, [http://www.religiousinstitute.org/statement/human-sexuality-and-sexual-behavior-a-social-statement-of-the-american-lutheran-church-a--1], and the Seventh Day Adventist Church [http://www.religiousinstitute.org/statement/birth-control-a-seventh-day-adventist-statement-of-consensus] have policies supporting contraception.
As people of faith, we must resist those who would deny individuals the ability to make their own personal decisions about their families and reproductive lives; indeed we must resist the political attempts to make such decisions and such services controversial when they are not. As the Open Letter states, “contraception allows for a fulfilling sexual life while reducing maternal and infant mortality, unintended pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases.” Surely as the wide range of endorsers of the Open Letter demonstrates, family planning is common ground.
If you are a religious leader, please add your name to the list of endorsers by clicking www.religiousinstitute.org/olfp. Read the Open Letter and view the endorsements there as well. If you are a member of a faith community, please ask your religious leader to add their name. Help us spread the word about the new Open Letter on Facebook and Twitter.
Let us demonstrate to all who would once again limit contraception that people of faith understand that “contraception saves lives, promotes human flourishing, and advances the common good.”
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Monday, June 06, 2011
Sex Education for Politicians - Weiner Edition
Congressman Anthony Weinter joins the long line of men in public office who have risked their familieis and careers for sexual indiscretions. It's been a solid month of high profile men behaving badly, very badly: John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
There's not much new about this. There have been many heterosexual well known men who have potentially risked everything for a sexual encounter or thrill. Think Gary Hart, Marv Alpert, Bill Clinton, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Bill Cosby, Elliot Spitzer, Bill O'Reilly, and Mark Sanford. Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Cosby continue on with their work and Mr. Spitzer got a TV show; others have not been so lucky. It remains to be seen what will happen to Mr. Weiner, although one has to wonder whether tweeting yourself in underwear or facebook chatting with women you don't know is really grounds for resignation. Surely though his vast abilities and his championship of many of the causes I hold dear are now severely compromised.
But these men have either forgotten or never learned some basic rules for sexually healthy adults. So here they are:
Honor your commitments to your partner. A sexually healthy marriage is based on honesty and trust; only you and your spouse know what you have agreed to, but don't put her in the position of having to stand by you at a microphone while you confess to the entire world. Keep that picture in your head as you are considering your behaviors. And, if you can't honor the commitments you've made, you're better off staying single.
Understand that you can have a sexual feeling without acting on it -- without even telling anyone about it. Think about it -- if Bill Clinton had thought to himself, "Cute Intern. Too Young, Too Risky" and moved on, he would not have been impeached. If your partner isn't interested in exploring a particular part of your eroticism with you, the safest thing is to explore it only in the confines of your mind. No one has ended up on the front pages because of a privately held fantasy.
Nothing, really nothing, is ever private between two people. Someone always tells someone. And the less the other person has to lose, the more likely they are to tell more people. In fact, unless it's your life partner, only have sex with someone who has as much to lose as you do. Sex workers don't. Neither do women or men in their twenties. And sexual bantering, sexting, tweeting, emailing and Facebook messaging are NEVER private. We tell our teens don't post anything you don't want your grandmother to see. To men in public office, don't post anything you don't want to see on the front page -- anywhere or ever.
Sexually healthy adults discriminate between sexual behaviors that are life enhancing -- for themselves and their partners - with those that could be destructive (of themselves or their partner(s). If there's a chance that the behavior could cost you your partner, career, reputation, just say no. Visiting a sex club, a sex worker, having sex with an employee, tweeting a sexual photo or sexting, soliciting someone in a public bathroom or park: chances are it's going to land you on the front page and you'll lose your job and probably your marriage. It's even worse if you've campaigned or worked against other people doing the same things. At least Congressman Weiner isn't for curtailing other people's sex lives while exploring the dark side of his, a la Vitter.
Remember that a moral sexual relationship is consensual, nonexploitative, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected. Does the relationship meet those criteria? Mr. Weiner says he never touched any of these women: I guess that makes them protected. I'm wondering though about the other four. If you can't answer yes to these, say no.
Always ask if the behavior consistent with your values, expressed and internal. If you're found out, will you be accused of hypocrisy? More importantly, can you live with yourself?
Of course, this ethic applies to all of us, not just people in political power. May we once again be reminded that sexuality is both sacred and powerful, and we need to honor its role in our lives.
There's not much new about this. There have been many heterosexual well known men who have potentially risked everything for a sexual encounter or thrill. Think Gary Hart, Marv Alpert, Bill Clinton, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Bill Cosby, Elliot Spitzer, Bill O'Reilly, and Mark Sanford. Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Cosby continue on with their work and Mr. Spitzer got a TV show; others have not been so lucky. It remains to be seen what will happen to Mr. Weiner, although one has to wonder whether tweeting yourself in underwear or facebook chatting with women you don't know is really grounds for resignation. Surely though his vast abilities and his championship of many of the causes I hold dear are now severely compromised.
But these men have either forgotten or never learned some basic rules for sexually healthy adults. So here they are:
Honor your commitments to your partner. A sexually healthy marriage is based on honesty and trust; only you and your spouse know what you have agreed to, but don't put her in the position of having to stand by you at a microphone while you confess to the entire world. Keep that picture in your head as you are considering your behaviors. And, if you can't honor the commitments you've made, you're better off staying single.
Understand that you can have a sexual feeling without acting on it -- without even telling anyone about it. Think about it -- if Bill Clinton had thought to himself, "Cute Intern. Too Young, Too Risky" and moved on, he would not have been impeached. If your partner isn't interested in exploring a particular part of your eroticism with you, the safest thing is to explore it only in the confines of your mind. No one has ended up on the front pages because of a privately held fantasy.
Nothing, really nothing, is ever private between two people. Someone always tells someone. And the less the other person has to lose, the more likely they are to tell more people. In fact, unless it's your life partner, only have sex with someone who has as much to lose as you do. Sex workers don't. Neither do women or men in their twenties. And sexual bantering, sexting, tweeting, emailing and Facebook messaging are NEVER private. We tell our teens don't post anything you don't want your grandmother to see. To men in public office, don't post anything you don't want to see on the front page -- anywhere or ever.
Sexually healthy adults discriminate between sexual behaviors that are life enhancing -- for themselves and their partners - with those that could be destructive (of themselves or their partner(s). If there's a chance that the behavior could cost you your partner, career, reputation, just say no. Visiting a sex club, a sex worker, having sex with an employee, tweeting a sexual photo or sexting, soliciting someone in a public bathroom or park: chances are it's going to land you on the front page and you'll lose your job and probably your marriage. It's even worse if you've campaigned or worked against other people doing the same things. At least Congressman Weiner isn't for curtailing other people's sex lives while exploring the dark side of his, a la Vitter.
Remember that a moral sexual relationship is consensual, nonexploitative, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected. Does the relationship meet those criteria? Mr. Weiner says he never touched any of these women: I guess that makes them protected. I'm wondering though about the other four. If you can't answer yes to these, say no.
Always ask if the behavior consistent with your values, expressed and internal. If you're found out, will you be accused of hypocrisy? More importantly, can you live with yourself?
Of course, this ethic applies to all of us, not just people in political power. May we once again be reminded that sexuality is both sacred and powerful, and we need to honor its role in our lives.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
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."
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."
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Support Planned Parenthood -- Stop the Attacks on Women
I watched CNN late last Friday, transfixed as news broke that the government shutdown had been averted and that forty policy riders had been dropped, including the amendment to ban Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country from receiving federal funds. I had just returned from a day in Washington with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Clergy Advisory Board, including an interfaith breakfast attended by hundreds of Planned Parenthood supporters of faith. I had been stunned all week to think that the government shut down, in Senator Harry Reid’s words, might come down to the House leadership using the budget to attack women’s access to health care services or environmental protection.
Last week demonstrated what many of us already knew: the Tea Party is only the latest version of the religious right in new wineskins. Following the November 2010 elections, studies from both the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Public Religion Research Institute found that “the Tea Party rank and file are not in fact secular libertarians, but are social conservatives largely drawn from the ranks of the Christian Right.”
I am angry: angry as a woman, as a mother, as a Planned Parenthood staff veteran, and as a member of the clergy. And like tens of thousands of people of faith across the country, I’m doing what I can to make my voice heard. Last week, the Religious Institute joined Planned Parenthood Federation of American, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and more than twenty other leading organizations to take part in the Stand Up For Women's Health Rally in front of the U.S. Capitol. We stood together to show our legislators that faith-based and sexual and reproductive health organizations support access for women and men to the health services they need to lead healthy and responsible lives. It is immoral to use family planning and reproductive health services—vital services that save women’s lives in the United States and abroad—as a bargaining chip in politicized budget debates.
In collaboration with colleagues from other faith-based organizations, we helped to develop the “Interfaith Statement Opposing Restrictions on Women’s Health Care Options” distributed to members of Congress and endorsed by organizations as diverse as the National Council of Jewish Women, the Episcopal Women’s Caucus, and Muslims for Progressive Values. As the Religious Institute’s Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Maternal Mortality and Reproductive Justice states, “The sacredness of human life is best upheld when women and men create human life intentionally and women are able to have healthy pregnancies and childbirths.” Publicly funded family planning services help women prevent STDs/HIV, provide cancer screenings, and offer access to contraception. In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions. According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Guttmacher Institute, doubling current investments in family planning and pregnancy related care could save the lives of 400,000 women and 1.6 million infants each year. To put it bluntly, access to reproductive health services is a matter of life and death.
I am relieved that sanity prevailed in Washington, D.C. and that the President and many Congressional leaders refused to trade women’s access to gynecological services, pap smears, HIV testing, and, yes, birth control, for a budget agreement. However, I am angry that once again the District of Columbia will not be able to use its own funds to support abortion services. As more details about the budget cuts are released, they will most certainly hurt the most marginalized and vulnerable among us. I made a donation to the DC Abortion Fund on Monday morning, letting them know I was a faith leader.
Some time this week, the House and the Senate will vote on whether federal funds can support Planned Parenthood affiliates. The guess is that the vote to ban them from providing FAMILY PLANNING (not abortions as some news has incorrectly inferred) will fail. But your voices are needed, and I hope you've been in touch with your Congressperson to "JUST SAY NO TO PENCE."
These are the worst attacks on women's health that I've seen in my 30 plus years as an activist on these issues. The voices of people of faith who support women's sexual and reproductive rights must be heard.
Last week demonstrated what many of us already knew: the Tea Party is only the latest version of the religious right in new wineskins. Following the November 2010 elections, studies from both the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Public Religion Research Institute found that “the Tea Party rank and file are not in fact secular libertarians, but are social conservatives largely drawn from the ranks of the Christian Right.”
I am angry: angry as a woman, as a mother, as a Planned Parenthood staff veteran, and as a member of the clergy. And like tens of thousands of people of faith across the country, I’m doing what I can to make my voice heard. Last week, the Religious Institute joined Planned Parenthood Federation of American, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and more than twenty other leading organizations to take part in the Stand Up For Women's Health Rally in front of the U.S. Capitol. We stood together to show our legislators that faith-based and sexual and reproductive health organizations support access for women and men to the health services they need to lead healthy and responsible lives. It is immoral to use family planning and reproductive health services—vital services that save women’s lives in the United States and abroad—as a bargaining chip in politicized budget debates.
In collaboration with colleagues from other faith-based organizations, we helped to develop the “Interfaith Statement Opposing Restrictions on Women’s Health Care Options” distributed to members of Congress and endorsed by organizations as diverse as the National Council of Jewish Women, the Episcopal Women’s Caucus, and Muslims for Progressive Values. As the Religious Institute’s Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Maternal Mortality and Reproductive Justice states, “The sacredness of human life is best upheld when women and men create human life intentionally and women are able to have healthy pregnancies and childbirths.” Publicly funded family planning services help women prevent STDs/HIV, provide cancer screenings, and offer access to contraception. In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions. According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Guttmacher Institute, doubling current investments in family planning and pregnancy related care could save the lives of 400,000 women and 1.6 million infants each year. To put it bluntly, access to reproductive health services is a matter of life and death.
I am relieved that sanity prevailed in Washington, D.C. and that the President and many Congressional leaders refused to trade women’s access to gynecological services, pap smears, HIV testing, and, yes, birth control, for a budget agreement. However, I am angry that once again the District of Columbia will not be able to use its own funds to support abortion services. As more details about the budget cuts are released, they will most certainly hurt the most marginalized and vulnerable among us. I made a donation to the DC Abortion Fund on Monday morning, letting them know I was a faith leader.
Some time this week, the House and the Senate will vote on whether federal funds can support Planned Parenthood affiliates. The guess is that the vote to ban them from providing FAMILY PLANNING (not abortions as some news has incorrectly inferred) will fail. But your voices are needed, and I hope you've been in touch with your Congressperson to "JUST SAY NO TO PENCE."
These are the worst attacks on women's health that I've seen in my 30 plus years as an activist on these issues. The voices of people of faith who support women's sexual and reproductive rights must be heard.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Leading Evangelical Speaks Out With Rev. Haffner
Yesterday, Rev. Richard Cizik and I released an op ed column on our joint support for domestic and international family planning.
You may remember Rev. Cizik as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, a position he became after Rev. Ted Haggard had to step down after being discovered having sex and buying drugs from a male escort.
Rev. Cizik has gone on to head a new organization, the New Evangelical Partnership, which is a coalition of more mainstream evangelical organizations committed to the common good. Here's a piece of part of what we said:
You may remember Rev. Cizik as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, a position he became after Rev. Ted Haggard had to step down after being discovered having sex and buying drugs from a male escort.
Rev. Cizik has gone on to head a new organization, the New Evangelical Partnership, which is a coalition of more mainstream evangelical organizations committed to the common good. Here's a piece of part of what we said:
As religious leaders, we are both called to respond to the needs of the most marginalized, the most vulnerable, and the most likely to be excluded. Both of our organizations are committed to Goal Five of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, calling for improved global maternal health by reducing maternal mortality by three quarters and achieving universal access to reproductive health. Both of us are committed to helping create a just and equitable world where no woman will die giving birth to the next generation.
Although we hold differing moral values about abortion, we share a commitment that because life is sacred, it should never be created carelessly or unintentionally. That is why we both support the Title X family planning program, which helps avert nearly one million pregnancies in the United States annually. That is why we have a shared belief in international family planning programs, because we know that maternal mortality around the world could be reduced by more than 70 percent by improved access to reproductive health services. We support domestic and international family planning because we know it reduces neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, including deaths attributable to unsafe abortions--and it helps build strong families and lives.
As religious leaders, we are called to improve women's and children's lives. It is simply inconceivable to either of us that those who oppose abortion services also have voted to cut or eliminate family planning, prenatal care, mother and infant nutrition programs, and community health services. We stand together in calling on people of faith across the religious spectrum to stand up for the needs of low-income families and their children. We are pro-faith, pro-family, and pro-child.
As people of faith, we call on the U.S. Senate to reject the draconian and ultimately immoral cuts proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives. As religious leaders called by God to co-create a better world where all may flourish and thrive, we can do no less.
You can read the whole piece at www.washingtonpost.com/onfaith
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
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 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
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
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/
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Abortion and Health Care Reform
I just knew we were going to get to this place in the health care reform debate.
Today's New York Times has a front page article on increasing efforts in Congress to remove any provisions for coverage of abortion services in health care reform. Pro-choice legislators had already agreed that abortion would NOT be in the public option (thereby once again making sure that low-income women and federal employees would not have subsidized reproductive health services), but that women who had private plans that covered such services would not lose them.
But even that's not enough for those who would really prefer to make abortion illegal but will settle for making it impossible to get.
And I'm worried that the President is going to go along with this, backing down from his commitments to be a pro-choice President. It's not enough to assure that abortion is safe, legal and rare: it also must be accessible, and that means coverage in health care.
More than a thousand religious leaders have endorsed our Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision. This isn't just a public health issue; it's about assuring that women's moral agency to make their own decisions about childbearing is supported.
President Obama, please don't let us down.
Today's New York Times has a front page article on increasing efforts in Congress to remove any provisions for coverage of abortion services in health care reform. Pro-choice legislators had already agreed that abortion would NOT be in the public option (thereby once again making sure that low-income women and federal employees would not have subsidized reproductive health services), but that women who had private plans that covered such services would not lose them.
But even that's not enough for those who would really prefer to make abortion illegal but will settle for making it impossible to get.
And I'm worried that the President is going to go along with this, backing down from his commitments to be a pro-choice President. It's not enough to assure that abortion is safe, legal and rare: it also must be accessible, and that means coverage in health care.
More than a thousand religious leaders have endorsed our Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision. This isn't just a public health issue; it's about assuring that women's moral agency to make their own decisions about childbearing is supported.
President Obama, please don't let us down.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A First Step, Long Overdue
My inbox was flooded yesterday with statements of support for the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, introduced in Congress by Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro.
SIECUS wrote that the bill "sets aside the false choices that the culture war has passed off for too long as the legitimate boundaries of discourse and public policy. And it does so by supporting common sense approaches that will empower individuals to make more informed, responsible, and healthier decisions for themselves and their families."
I agree 100%. Ryan/DeLauro is a good piece of legislation that addresses many of the important issues, including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, and support for pregnant and parenting women. Preventing unintended pregnancy, ensuring abortion access and funding family planning initiatives are intertwined issues and should be dealt with together. But this bill is only a piece of the reproductive health and justice agenda we hope to see.
As we said in 2005, in our Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision, there is a moral imperative for access:
"The ability to choose an abortion should not be compromised by economic, educational, class or marital status, age, race, geographic location or inadequate information. Current measures that limit women’s access to abortion services—by denying public funds for low-income women; coercing parental consent and notification as contrasted with providing resources for parental and adolescent counseling; denying international family planning assistance to agencies in developing countries that offer women information about pregnancy options; and banning medical procedures—are punitive and do nothing to promote moral decision-making."In addition to reducing unintended pregnancies, we must work together to address the circumstances that result in the decision to have an abortion. Poverty, social inequities, lack of education, sexism, racism and unsupportive relationships can severely restrict a woman's ability to freely choose.
All of this is part of our religious and moral commitment to reproductive health and rights. Ryan/DeLauro is a first step -- but an important one nonetheless. And long, long overdue.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Coverage of Religious Institute's Congressional Briefing on Sex Ed
One of my favorite journalists and bloggers is Sarah Posner. We just met in person last week for the first time. She writes for the Nation, American Prospect, and other print and online journals on religion and politics. The fact that we share an alma mater is a nice connection.
She covered our briefing last week in American Prospect. I'll let you read it directly:
Pro-Sexual-Justice Religious Left Calls for End to Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Funding.
For all his talk of "abortion reduction" as one of his centrist goals, Wallis remains committed to the idea that, in Gedeik's words to me this week, abortion is the "taking of a human life." That's theo-conservative, not theo-progressive talk. There is a religious left that emphasizes the moral agency of women to make reproductive choices, something Wallis does not.
But progressive, pro-choice religious activism is not limited to abortion. It includes a panoply of reproductive-justice issues. This week, a group of religious activists continued their push for the government to end abstinence-only sex education and fund comprehensive sex education.
The Religious Institute on Sexual Justice, Morality, and Healing, which has gathered over 900 pastoral signatures in favor of comprehensive sex education, hosted a briefing this week for congressional staff. Activists, including pastors, made a religious case for teaching medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education in the nation's public schools.
According to Bill Smith, vice president for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the White House has assured activists of its commitment to comprehensive sex education. "It's a new day in this town," said Smith at the briefing. Obama is "the first president in American history who supports unequivocally a comprehensive approach to sex education."
But in the end, it's not about religion but science. "If science is in," Smith said, "abstinence-only is definitely out."
But for Obama, and increasingly for Democrats, the issue is also about satisfying religious constituencies to the right of the Religious Institute. Science is in but so is religion.
Thanks, Sarah. Good to meet you.
She covered our briefing last week in American Prospect. I'll let you read it directly:
Pro-Sexual-Justice Religious Left Calls for End to Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Funding.
For all his talk of "abortion reduction" as one of his centrist goals, Wallis remains committed to the idea that, in Gedeik's words to me this week, abortion is the "taking of a human life." That's theo-conservative, not theo-progressive talk. There is a religious left that emphasizes the moral agency of women to make reproductive choices, something Wallis does not.
But progressive, pro-choice religious activism is not limited to abortion. It includes a panoply of reproductive-justice issues. This week, a group of religious activists continued their push for the government to end abstinence-only sex education and fund comprehensive sex education.
The Religious Institute on Sexual Justice, Morality, and Healing, which has gathered over 900 pastoral signatures in favor of comprehensive sex education, hosted a briefing this week for congressional staff. Activists, including pastors, made a religious case for teaching medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education in the nation's public schools.
According to Bill Smith, vice president for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the White House has assured activists of its commitment to comprehensive sex education. "It's a new day in this town," said Smith at the briefing. Obama is "the first president in American history who supports unequivocally a comprehensive approach to sex education."
But in the end, it's not about religion but science. "If science is in," Smith said, "abstinence-only is definitely out."
But for Obama, and increasingly for Democrats, the issue is also about satisfying religious constituencies to the right of the Religious Institute. Science is in but so is religion.
Thanks, Sarah. Good to meet you.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Religious Institute to Congress: Fund Sexuality Education Now
Here's a photo from the Religious Institute briefing on reducing teenage pregnancies and STI's that we held this past week.
Joining me at the table are Ann Hanson, Rev. Ignacio Castuera, Rev. Cedric Harmon, Emily Goodstein, and Bill Smith. Over 30 national organizations and Congressional offices sent representatives to the briefing.
We'll be posting my comments at our website next week, but here's a piece from the ending. Let me know what you think.
The fact is we know how to prevent unintended teenage pregnancies. The US teenage pregnancy rate is 9 times higher than the Netherlands, four or five times higher than other European countries. Our teen gonorrhea rate is a shocking 74 time higher than France and the Netherlands. 74 times. The reason? An openness about sexuality, a clear message to young people that sexuality is a wonderful part of life but that it must be exercised wisely, sexuality education that begins at the youngest ages in the home and in schools and continues throughout their youth and early adulthood, and easily accessible free or low cost family planning services. We have forty years of research telling us there is NO silver bullet, but there are clear common sense proven strategies – we just need the political will and the funding to put them into practice.
That’s good public health practice – but it’s also the moral and ethical response. Religious institutions and religious leaders support and provide comprehensive sexuality education out of deep commitment to our theology, our sacred texts, and to our belief that they are called to serve the most vulnerable, the most marginalized among us. We must remember that the lack of sexuality education and family planning services disproportionately affects low income families in the United States: Poor and low income adolescents account for almost three quarters of all teenage pregnancies in the United States, and 83% of the births to teenagers.
Sexuality is one of life’s most precious blessings, but we need to be wise stewards of this gift. We know that our sexuality should be celebrated with joy, holiness, and integrity, but that requires understanding, respect and self discipline. We know that our young people need adult help to develop their capacity for moral discernment and a freely informed conscience.
We are at a Kairos moment. We need a federal sexuality education program that reaches all young people -- those who are heterosexual, those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning of their orientation, those who are transgender or questioning, those who are abstinent and choose to remain so, those who have had sexual relationships, and those who have experienced sexual abuse.
Last year at a similar briefing, I ended my remarks this way. “It is time – it is way past time – for the federal government to support sexuality education programs for youth and to cease funding programs that are not only ineffective but may put our children and teenagers at risk – for disease, for short changed futures, for denial of the gift of their sexuality. “
It is a Kairos moment for our young people. We pray that together those of us in this room – the members of Congress and their staffs, the organizational representatives, the religious leaders – will walk through that opening together."
May it be so.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Congress Hearings on Sex Education -- Hundreds of Religious Leaders Exhort Congress to Support Comprehensive Sexuality Education
On April 23rd, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is holding its first hearing on the "Public Health and Ethical Concerns with Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs and the Need for Comprehensive Sexuality Education."
I'm trying to put behind me my strong feeling that these hearings should have been held in 1997 when the first federal funding for abstinence only began, but better late than never.
As soon as the Religious Institute heard about the hearings late last week, we developed a statement to be submitted into the hearing record and turned to our colleagues for their endorsment.
In two days, we were able to obtain the endorsements of more than 250 clergy and religious leaders, including the heads of four denominations and the leaders of more than 30 national religious organizations. You can read it at www.religiousinstitute.org
The statement concludes, "It is time for the federal government to support comprehensive sexuality education programs for youth and to cease funding programs that are not only ineffective but may put our children and teenagers at risk -- for disease, for short changed futures, for denial of the gift of their sexuality. It is time to provide all young people with accurate information that respects the diversity of values in a community. It is indeed a time to speak and a time to act. May our religious voices help you understand that it is also the only moral response."
In other words, it's time for Congress to finally "Just Say No."
I'm trying to put behind me my strong feeling that these hearings should have been held in 1997 when the first federal funding for abstinence only began, but better late than never.
As soon as the Religious Institute heard about the hearings late last week, we developed a statement to be submitted into the hearing record and turned to our colleagues for their endorsment.
In two days, we were able to obtain the endorsements of more than 250 clergy and religious leaders, including the heads of four denominations and the leaders of more than 30 national religious organizations. You can read it at www.religiousinstitute.org
The statement concludes, "It is time for the federal government to support comprehensive sexuality education programs for youth and to cease funding programs that are not only ineffective but may put our children and teenagers at risk -- for disease, for short changed futures, for denial of the gift of their sexuality. It is time to provide all young people with accurate information that respects the diversity of values in a community. It is indeed a time to speak and a time to act. May our religious voices help you understand that it is also the only moral response."
In other words, it's time for Congress to finally "Just Say No."
Friday, March 14, 2008
Religious Leaders To Congressional Staff: Support Sex Education
I wish you could have been there.
On March 13, 2008, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, along with our co-sponsors, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), held a congressional briefing in the U.S. House of Representatives on religious support for sexuality education. The briefing was sponsored by Representatives Barbara Lee and Christopher Shays, who are the lead Congressional sponsors of the Responsible Education About Life Act.
I was joined by Reverend Steve Clapp of the Christian Community, Rev Consuelo Donahue of Bethany Hospice, Rev. Dr. Janet Parker of Rock Spring Congregational United Church of Christ, Rev. Carlton Veazey of RCRC, Rabbi Laura Novak Winer of the Union for Reform Judaism, and Jennifer Heitel Yakush of SIECUS. We represented ordained clergy from seven different faith traditions: Church of the Brethren, Reform Judaism, National Baptist Convention of the USA, Presbyterian (USA), United Methodist, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalist.
Our traditions are different, but our message all affirmed that religious institutions support and provide comprehensive sexuality education out of our deep commitment to our theology, to our sacred texts, and to the belief that we are called to serve the most vulnerable, the most marginalized.
As I told the more than sixty people in attendance, for those of us from Jewish and Christian traditions, Scripture calls us to truth telling. We are to teach that “there is a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing”, but we also are required to give young people accurate and honest information so that they can make moral and healthy decisions about relationships for themselves now and in the future. As our Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Sexuality Education states, “education that respects and empowers young people has more integrity than education that withholds information, gives misinformation, and instills fear, guilt, and shame.”
I ended my testimony, “It is time – it is way past time – for the federal government to support sexuality education programs for youth and to cease funding programs that are not only ineffective but may put our children and teenagers at risk – for disease, for short changed futures, for denial of the gift of their sexuality. It is time to provide all our young people with accurate education that respects the diversity of values in a community. It is indeed a time to speak and a time to act. May our religious voices help you understand that it is also the only moral response.”
On March 13, 2008, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, along with our co-sponsors, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), held a congressional briefing in the U.S. House of Representatives on religious support for sexuality education. The briefing was sponsored by Representatives Barbara Lee and Christopher Shays, who are the lead Congressional sponsors of the Responsible Education About Life Act.
I was joined by Reverend Steve Clapp of the Christian Community, Rev Consuelo Donahue of Bethany Hospice, Rev. Dr. Janet Parker of Rock Spring Congregational United Church of Christ, Rev. Carlton Veazey of RCRC, Rabbi Laura Novak Winer of the Union for Reform Judaism, and Jennifer Heitel Yakush of SIECUS. We represented ordained clergy from seven different faith traditions: Church of the Brethren, Reform Judaism, National Baptist Convention of the USA, Presbyterian (USA), United Methodist, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalist.
Our traditions are different, but our message all affirmed that religious institutions support and provide comprehensive sexuality education out of our deep commitment to our theology, to our sacred texts, and to the belief that we are called to serve the most vulnerable, the most marginalized.
As I told the more than sixty people in attendance, for those of us from Jewish and Christian traditions, Scripture calls us to truth telling. We are to teach that “there is a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing”, but we also are required to give young people accurate and honest information so that they can make moral and healthy decisions about relationships for themselves now and in the future. As our Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Sexuality Education states, “education that respects and empowers young people has more integrity than education that withholds information, gives misinformation, and instills fear, guilt, and shame.”
I ended my testimony, “It is time – it is way past time – for the federal government to support sexuality education programs for youth and to cease funding programs that are not only ineffective but may put our children and teenagers at risk – for disease, for short changed futures, for denial of the gift of their sexuality. It is time to provide all our young people with accurate education that respects the diversity of values in a community. It is indeed a time to speak and a time to act. May our religious voices help you understand that it is also the only moral response.”
Thursday, November 08, 2007
ENDA Passes House -- And We Should Celebrate, TODAY
I spent 13 years in Washington, D.C., working on public policy issues for much of it, and I understand how as an advocate, it's hard not to get everything you want, everything that is right.
Gracie Allen's line, "do not put a period where God has placed a comma" is running through my mind.
Late yesterday afternoon, the House of Representatives passed a historic Employment Non-Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and those of us who believe that sexual diversity is part of God's blessing, should be celebrating. First introduced in 1974, the bill took 33 years to pass. It makes it illegal “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.”
When the bill was introduced early this year, it included provisions to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender expression and gender identity. Those provisions were stripped when sponsors realized they did not have the votes to pass a trans-inclusive bill. That's where the inside the Beltway struggle began, with many organizations I support arguing that we needed to oppose a bill that left out the "T" of LGBT. I understood their point, supported an amendment to re-introduce protections for transgender persons into the bill, but I can't join them in not being joyful about what DID happen yesterday. And after we celebrate today, we need to get back to work. I join the call for the introduction of an ENDA that includes trans protection immediately, with public hearings to be held as soon as possible.
The conventional wisdom is that this version of ENDA, once approved by the Senate, will surely be vetoed by President Bush. It may very well be 2009 before there is a trans-inclusive ENDA. And although I understand that that means that in 39 states, people can still be fired for their gender expression, two years, given the movement towards full equality for LGBT persons is decades old, doesn't seem so far away.
We are moving towards justice on full inclusion...even if it's one step at a time. The period on full inclusion will come.
Gracie Allen's line, "do not put a period where God has placed a comma" is running through my mind.
Late yesterday afternoon, the House of Representatives passed a historic Employment Non-Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and those of us who believe that sexual diversity is part of God's blessing, should be celebrating. First introduced in 1974, the bill took 33 years to pass. It makes it illegal “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.”
When the bill was introduced early this year, it included provisions to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender expression and gender identity. Those provisions were stripped when sponsors realized they did not have the votes to pass a trans-inclusive bill. That's where the inside the Beltway struggle began, with many organizations I support arguing that we needed to oppose a bill that left out the "T" of LGBT. I understood their point, supported an amendment to re-introduce protections for transgender persons into the bill, but I can't join them in not being joyful about what DID happen yesterday. And after we celebrate today, we need to get back to work. I join the call for the introduction of an ENDA that includes trans protection immediately, with public hearings to be held as soon as possible.
The conventional wisdom is that this version of ENDA, once approved by the Senate, will surely be vetoed by President Bush. It may very well be 2009 before there is a trans-inclusive ENDA. And although I understand that that means that in 39 states, people can still be fired for their gender expression, two years, given the movement towards full equality for LGBT persons is decades old, doesn't seem so far away.
We are moving towards justice on full inclusion...even if it's one step at a time. The period on full inclusion will come.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
One More Time: Abstinence Only Doesn't Work, Comprehensive Programs Do
On Monday of this week, here and at Huffington Post, I blogged about the proposed $28 million increase for the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage program.
This morning, the National Campaign, a nonpartisan organization that has prided itself on being a "big tent" for people concerned with teenage pregnancy, bringing together conservative organizations with more mainstream groups, issued a new report, Emerging Answers 2007, that should be the final nail in the abstinence-only program.
My friend and colleague Dr. Doug Kirby is the author of the report, and after reviewing 115 rigorous studies, he concludes that a majority of the comprehensive sex education programs help young people delay and use protection when they do have sex, and that not one of the evaluated federal abstinence programs has been effective at changing teen's behaviors.
Here are a few quotes:
"In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination. … Only when strong evidence demonstrates that particular programs are effective should they be disseminated more widely."1(p. 15)
"At present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners. In addition, there is strong evidence from multiple randomized trials demonstrating that some abstinence programs chosen for evaluation because they were believed to be promising actually had no impact on teen sexual behavior. That is, they did not delay the initiation of sex, increase the return to abstinence or decrease the number of sexual partners."1(p. 15)
In contrast, a substantial majority of the comprehensive sex education programs reviewed—which receive no comparable federal funding—are effective. The positive outcomes included delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use. "
All this from an organization that has been unwilling up until now to oppose the federal abstinence only program.
The important question though is will Congress listen to the research and stop funding these programs? The answer should be an obvious "yes".
Unfortunately, all indications are that not only will they reauthorize and refund, their going to vote more money. And it's our young people that will suffer as a result.
This morning, the National Campaign, a nonpartisan organization that has prided itself on being a "big tent" for people concerned with teenage pregnancy, bringing together conservative organizations with more mainstream groups, issued a new report, Emerging Answers 2007, that should be the final nail in the abstinence-only program.
My friend and colleague Dr. Doug Kirby is the author of the report, and after reviewing 115 rigorous studies, he concludes that a majority of the comprehensive sex education programs help young people delay and use protection when they do have sex, and that not one of the evaluated federal abstinence programs has been effective at changing teen's behaviors.
Here are a few quotes:
"In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination. … Only when strong evidence demonstrates that particular programs are effective should they be disseminated more widely."1(p. 15)
"At present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners. In addition, there is strong evidence from multiple randomized trials demonstrating that some abstinence programs chosen for evaluation because they were believed to be promising actually had no impact on teen sexual behavior. That is, they did not delay the initiation of sex, increase the return to abstinence or decrease the number of sexual partners."1(p. 15)
In contrast, a substantial majority of the comprehensive sex education programs reviewed—which receive no comparable federal funding—are effective. The positive outcomes included delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use. "
All this from an organization that has been unwilling up until now to oppose the federal abstinence only program.
The important question though is will Congress listen to the research and stop funding these programs? The answer should be an obvious "yes".
Unfortunately, all indications are that not only will they reauthorize and refund, their going to vote more money. And it's our young people that will suffer as a result.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Just Say No to Increases in Abstinence Funds
Unbelievably, it looks like the Democratically-controlled US Congress is going to agree to the Bush Administrations request for MORE monies for abstinence-only-until-marriage education. The new total in the reconciled appropriations bill is $141 million, $28 million more than it was this year.
Here's some news from our friends at SIECUS:
Last year, CBAE grantees received $113 million in federal funding. While the Senate version of the appropriations bill this year reduced funding to $85 million, the House version increased it by an equal amount to $141 million. The version of the bill that came out of the conference committee more closely resembled the House version by increasing CBAE funding to the President’s requested level of $141 million. This money can only be spent on programs that teach abstinence-only-until-marriage and are subject to heavy restrictions. For example, any program that receives CBAE funds has to teach that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." ...
CBAE is one of three federal funding streams for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Combined, these revenue sources have given more than $1 billion in federal funds to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs since their inception. The last two Republican-led sessions of Congress did not increase funding for these initiatives. The $28 million increase proposed under the current bill would be the second largest increase for these programs in history.
How is this possible? Weren't we promised something better? Is it too much to hope that the Congress will stop supporting a program that is known to be ineffective, that denies young people full and accurate information, and that ignores the fact that almost all Americans have their first sex outside of marriage?
It's time to honor a commitment to truth telling. It's time for Congress to learn to "just say no."
Here's some news from our friends at SIECUS:
Last year, CBAE grantees received $113 million in federal funding. While the Senate version of the appropriations bill this year reduced funding to $85 million, the House version increased it by an equal amount to $141 million. The version of the bill that came out of the conference committee more closely resembled the House version by increasing CBAE funding to the President’s requested level of $141 million. This money can only be spent on programs that teach abstinence-only-until-marriage and are subject to heavy restrictions. For example, any program that receives CBAE funds has to teach that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." ...
CBAE is one of three federal funding streams for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Combined, these revenue sources have given more than $1 billion in federal funds to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs since their inception. The last two Republican-led sessions of Congress did not increase funding for these initiatives. The $28 million increase proposed under the current bill would be the second largest increase for these programs in history.
How is this possible? Weren't we promised something better? Is it too much to hope that the Congress will stop supporting a program that is known to be ineffective, that denies young people full and accurate information, and that ignores the fact that almost all Americans have their first sex outside of marriage?
It's time to honor a commitment to truth telling. It's time for Congress to learn to "just say no."
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Casting the First Stone....
The Senator Craig story has gone from an article in a little know Capitol Hill publication to dominating the news cycle. Calls for his resignation are coming in from every quarter, and today he stepped down from his major committee assignments.
Now, this may surprise some of my readers, but I don't think he should be forced to resign. I've heard some Republicans say that his conduct was unbecoming of a Senator; well, yes, but why aren't these seem leaders calling for Senator Vitter's resignation or at least an ethics committee investigation? Oh, that's right, all he did was use a female escort service on a regular basis.
It's that double standard -- it's okay for Republican men to engage in extramarital sex as long as it's with a woman (I can't help but think of Rudy Guiliani who announced he was divorcing his wife and seeing another woman at a press conference to his wife's surprise) but soliciting a possible sex act from another man means a call for your resignation? Surely using escorts is unbecoming conduct, and in both cases, I wonder about the judgement of a public elected figure taking the risk to engage in the behavior. If Craig had solicited sex from a woman in the airport bar would anyone have cared?
I don't believe that Senator Craig acted ethically or morally, but with all those Republicans asking him to resign, I can't help but think about Jesus suggesting that he who was without sin should pick up the first stone. If you recall, they all went home.
***
Now, this may surprise some of my readers, but I don't think he should be forced to resign. I've heard some Republicans say that his conduct was unbecoming of a Senator; well, yes, but why aren't these seem leaders calling for Senator Vitter's resignation or at least an ethics committee investigation? Oh, that's right, all he did was use a female escort service on a regular basis.
It's that double standard -- it's okay for Republican men to engage in extramarital sex as long as it's with a woman (I can't help but think of Rudy Guiliani who announced he was divorcing his wife and seeing another woman at a press conference to his wife's surprise) but soliciting a possible sex act from another man means a call for your resignation? Surely using escorts is unbecoming conduct, and in both cases, I wonder about the judgement of a public elected figure taking the risk to engage in the behavior. If Craig had solicited sex from a woman in the airport bar would anyone have cared?
I don't believe that Senator Craig acted ethically or morally, but with all those Republicans asking him to resign, I can't help but think about Jesus suggesting that he who was without sin should pick up the first stone. If you recall, they all went home.
***
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Not Very Bright, Not Very Nice
On L'il Bush on Comedy Central, the President is portrayed as a not very nice not very bright third grader (along with L'il Condi, L'il Cheney, and so on.)
One could say the program is a bit mean spirited.
But last night, I was so angry at the President's second veto of stem cell legislation that it seemed just right. The legislation was strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats in both Houses who know how important this research is to millions of Americans and their families. His vote is simply pandering to the religious right base, rather than addressing the very real need and promise that exists for stem cell research of all kinds.
>
Comedy Central has it about right.
Call your Representative and Senators to urge them to override the veto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
