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.

My Afternoon At The White House

This is going to read a little bit like that classic "what I did on my summer vacation" essay you wrote in the 8th grade.

But, I'm just back from a trip to Washington, D.C. and a meeting of progressive faith leaders with Rev. Josh DuBois and Michael Ware from the White House Faith Based Office, Jennie Yeager from Public Communication, and Lauren Dunn from the Domestic Policy staff.

The meeting was held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- that's the one that sort of looks like an ornate wedding cake. And we were in a room that used to be the Vice President's office in past administrations (until they moved them to the actual West Wing.) Despite prior meetings over the years, I was still excited to be there.

We began asking for this meeting shortly after the inauguration. I am indebted to Nancy Ratzen, the President of the National Council for Jewish Women (NCJW), for helping make it happen.

Our purpose for the meeting was to bring progressive religious leaders to demonstrate faith based support for sexuality education. I was joined in speaking by Rev. Ignacio Castuera, National Chaplain for Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Ann Hanson, Minister for Sexuality Education and Justice for the United Church of Christ; Rev. Carlton Veazey, President of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (all of whom serve on the Religious Institute advisory committee); Rev. Ann Tiemeyer from the National Council of Churches of Christ; Rev. Amy Stapleton from the United Methodists; Lisa Cox from Catholics for Choice; and Nina Schwartz from NCJW. Together, we estimated that we represented over 60 million people of faith in the U.S. who support comprehensive sexuality education -- and oppose teaching young people only about abstinence.

The White House staff was warm, receptive, interested, and had many questions. They seemed particularly interested in learning about the UCC/UUA's Our Whole Lives programs for difficult to reach youth, and sex abuse and violence prevention. Rev. DuBois assured us that their goal was to reduce the need for abortions not the number of abortions (a subject I have written about here many times, and it was great to hear him use that language). We were also told to expect that the President would have something to say about teenage pregnancy prevention in the next few months.

It's always hard to know at first whether such meetings accomplish much. But I think we succeeded in our mission. We brought truly progressive religious leaders to the White House to support sexuality education. Our united voice let them know that mainstream to progressive Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and Unitarian Universalists support sexuality education and have for decades. We reinforced our faiths' commitment to truth telling, to helping young people develop a freely informed conscience, and to helping them celebrate their sexuality with holiness and integrity, as adolescents now and as future adults.

I'm grateful to the people who helped make it happen, to my colleagues for traveling to be with us, and to the people at the White House who listened, really listened, to us.

Fair Words at Notre Dame -- But NOT a New Take on Abortion

My email inbox is overflowing with religious leaders and organizations on the President's speech at Notre Dame yesterday.

I posted the link to the video last night. Here's what some of the text actually said:

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion....

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

And I think they were. I admire the President for going through with the speech, knowing about the protesters, for addressing the concerns about his pro-choice position directly, for not responding to the hecklers, the placards, and the outlines of fetuses on some of the mortarboards...but for stating calmly and resolutely that there is common ground on reducing unintended pregnancies, supporting women who choose adoption, and providing support for women who carry their pregnancies to term.

There is NOTHING NEW about these positions for the pro-choice, feminist community. It's what we have called for as long as I have been doing this work. It's how I was trained 30 years ago as a volunteer at a Planned Parenthood clinic, it's the words in a pregnancy counseling manual that I wrote in the early 1980's, and it is the basis of the Religious Institutes's Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion As A Moral Decision, published in 2005.

And now it's the position of the President of the United States. And since that earned him a long standing ovation at Notre Dame, it perhaps demonstrates more than ever that it's the position that most Americans believe.

As I have written here many times, surely there is common ground in understanding that because life and parenthood is so precious it should not be created carelessly -- and why there must be a moral commitment to comprehensive sexuality education, widespread availability of contraception, responsible procreation, high quality and affordable prenatal care, and intentional parenting.

I understand why some of that wasn't spelled out in detail yesterday at a Roman Catholic university; I'm glad for what was said, I'm glad that Notre Dame didn't rescind its invitation in light of the protests, and I know that in light of the Supreme Court vacancy, this issue isn't going away any time soon.

What would it take to all open our hearts and embrace a prevention first strategy?

President at Notre Dame on abortion

Watch the President at Notre Dame at http://tinyurl.com/ppsrla

And let me know what you think.

I'll blog on it tomorrow.

First 100 Days for Sexual Justice

I just heard on the "Today" show that the President is liked by more than 80% of the American public.

I'm one of them. I have to confess that I still get teary when I see certain photos of the President and his family.

It's been a good -- but not perfect -- beginning for sexual justice.

Gag rule -- gone.

Ban on stem cell research -- gone.

First reduction ever in abstinence-only-until-marriage education -- done.

Last minute Bush regulations on health care providers -- on the way to being gone.

Holding, despite a great deal of pressure, to the goal of reducing the "NEED" for abortion, not efforts to make abortion more difficult to obtain.

On the other hand, family planning was the only health service stripped from the stimulus package, and oh yes, the very unbalanced Faith Based Advisory Council. And no word on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or public promises on hate crimes.

But there is no question that we are in a different policy world than we were on January 20th. And we're grateful for this new beginning.

PS. Great common sense victory for Secretary Sebelius, despite tremendous anti-abortion groups' lobbying.

Bravo, Secretary Clinton!

This is what change looks like.

This is what a strong commitment to women's moral agency and reproductive justice looks like.




Take 3.25 minutes and watch this piece as Secretary Clinton responds to Congressman Smith's question about the Administration's position on reproductive services. Yes, she states clearly, unambiguously, and without apology that that includes access to safe and legal abortions.

It's a wonderful 3 minutes.

Thanks to Emily Douglas at RH Reality Check for posting it first.

Dayenu -- the seder at the White House

I'm hoping you can click on this photo of the White House seder and make it larger. It was sent to me by a friend who is a friend of a person who was there. Of course, I had heard about the White House seder -- how during the campaign, there was a seder in a hotel room and the campaign workers rather than saying "Next Year in Jerusalem!" -- the traditional ending of the seder -- said "Next Year at the White House! and THERE THEY ARE.

For those of you are Jewish, you might note that they are using the Maxwell House Haggadah (the haggadah of my childhood seders when haggadahs came with coffee cans!) and that each person has their own seder plate. As my sister said, "They didn't have to share their charoseth."

Look to at who seems to leading the seder. Do you think they sang Chad Gad Yo or that Sasha did the four questions?

I found this photo touching and affirming. One can hardly imagine a seder in either of the Bush White House dining rooms. Maybe the Clintons though.

Dayenu.

White House Faith Based Office

So, while I was in Canada, the White House announced the final members of its 25-person faith based and neighborhood council office. Here's the list:

Diane Baillargeon, president and CEO, Seedco, New York City, N.Y.
Anju Bhargava, founder, Asian Indian Women of America, New Jersey
Bishop Charles Blake, presiding bishop, Church of God in Christ, Los Angeles, Calif.
The Reverend Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association, Chicago, Ill.
The Reverend Peg Chemberlin, president-elect, National Council of Churches, Minneapolis, Minn.
Dr. Arturo Chavez, president and CEO, Mexican American Catholic College, San Antonio, Texas
Fred Davie, senior adviser, Public/Private Ventures, New York City, N.Y.
Nathan Diament, director of public policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of AmericaWashington, D.C.
Pastor Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed, Longwood, Fla.
Harry Knox, director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, D.C.
Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, presiding bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Knoxville, Tenn.
Dalia Mogahed, executive director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, Washington, D.C.
The Reverend Otis Moss Jr., pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church, Cleveland, Ohio
Dr. Frank S. Page, president emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention, Taylors, S.C.
Eboo S. Patel, founder and executive director, Interfaith Youth Core, Chicago, Ill.
Anthony Picarello, general counsel, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C.
Nancy Ratzan, national president, National Council of Jewish Women, Miami, Fla.
Melissa Rogers, director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Rabbi David N. Saperstein, director and counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Washington, D.C.
Dr. William J. Shaw, president, National Baptist Convention, USA, Philadelphia, Pa.
Father Larry J. Snyder, president, Catholic Charities USA, Alexandria, Va.
Richard Stearns, president, World Vision, Bellevue, Wash.
Judith N. Vredenburgh, president and CEO, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America, Philadelphia, Pa.
The Reverend Jim Wallis, president and executive director, Sojourners, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Sharon Watkins, general minister and president, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)Indianapolis, Ind.

The additional ten people include my friend and colleague, Harry Knox from the Human Rights Campaign, and Nancy Ratzen, whom I do not know but represents the National Council of Jewish Women, a solid supporter of sexual justice issues. That brings the number of people on this committee who stand publicly with the President's public commitments on sexuality issues to perhaps 20 percent. At least seven of these people are publicly anti-choice, and I'm guessing a few more of them probably are more quietly. It's hard to imagine how the Obama administration composed this committee with only one third women, only three of them women clergy. Only two of these people are openly gay.

This would all matter much less if the committee wasn't charged with addressing several sexual justice issues, including reducing unintended pregnancies and teenage pregnancy, and promoting the responsibilities of fatherhood. Yet, only a handful of the people on this list have ever worked on these issues. And it's not because the Obama administration didn't know who to pick from -- I know that several women's organizations provided the names of many women candidates, including women clergy, (yes, including me) to choose from.

Frances Kissling did a wonderful job over at Religion Dispatches addressing what's so wrong with this Council. I encourage you to read it. She said in part:

That leaves a majority of religious leaders on the Council who are likely to lead the nation down a road in which respect for women’s rights will be as absent from their recommendations for government policy and funding as they are in the religious institutions they represent.

For me, and for many feminists, President Obama’s Council on Faith based and Neighborhood Partnerships will be about as respected as President Bush’s Council on Bio-ethics. As with that Advisory group, the majority presence will drown out the minority and in this case, it will not be junk science that prevails but junk religion. I am so sorry that I have to draw this conclusion.

It's hard to imagine how this group -- which ranges from many highly conservative members who are by their own writings anti-choice, anti-gay and opposed to sexuality education, to a handful of people who are progressive on sexual justice in their public commitments, and many who have until now not dealt publicly with these issues -- will reach any meaningful consensus or common ground on how to achieve its stated goals. They surely will have intense discussions, although compromise statements beyond encouraging teens to wait to have intercourse and services for pregnant women and incentives for fathers to be involved seem unlikely.

I suppose I can pray to be surprised.

Thank You, President Obama!

The broad outlines for the President's 2010 budget have now been released, and it looks really promising for those of us who support reproductive health and justice and the needs of women, children, and underserved populations. It specifically includes increases in revenues to detect, prevent, and treat HIV domestically, adds support to a visiting nurses program to first time low income mothers and mothers to be, and increases the child care block grant. And here's what it says about teenage pregnancy:


Prevents Teen Pregnancy. The Budget supports
State, community-based, and faith-based
efforts to reduce teen pregnancy using evidence based
models. The program will fund models that
stress the importance of abstinence while providing
medically-accurate and age-appropriate
information to youth who have already become
sexually active.

Could this be the death knoll for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that are neither evidence-based (the evidence is that they don't work) and that acknowledge and provide information and services for young people to prevent pregnancies and disease? Will the budget finally end funding for ineffective, wasteful, and harmful (no less immoral) programs?

President Obama also today took the first step toward eliminating "the HHS “refusal rule” imposed by the Bush Administration that would have limited women’s access to birth control. The rule would have allowed health care professionals to refuse, on religious or moral grounds, to provide women with the family planning services they need -- or even to refer to providers who would offer these services. Further as I understand it federally funded clinics would have been prohibited from asking future employees their willingness to offer these services: in other words, a hospital might hire a pharmacist who wouldn't dispense EC to rape victims or a Title X doctor who wouldn't give teenagers contraception.

From a press release from Advocates for Youth:

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Health and Human Services has sent a proposed rule change “Rescission of the Regulation Issued by the Department of Health and Human Services on December 19, 2008, Implementing the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. 300a-7), Section 245 of the Public Health Service” for review to OMB.

Once a notice of the rule change is published in the Federal Register, the public will have a chance to submit comments.

This regulation was signed into law in the last days of the Bush administration, despite nearly 200,000 people wrote comments opposing them.

As a religious leader, I applaud the President's decision. I can appreciate that some physicians, nurses, pharmacists and so on do not want to participate in delivering sexual health services -- I just don't think they should work for federally funded programs that have as their mandate to deliver them. Blessings for one more step forward from the dark anti-reproductive health policies of the last Administration.

The new White House Office on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships: Who's Missing at the Table?

I was deep into sermon preparation most of yesterday so I missed the announcement of the new White House Office on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, including the first 15 members of the advisory committee.


The Office has four priorities, according to the press release, including:

It will be one voice among several in the administration that will look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.

Note that the wording is NOT “abortion reduction” as being reported in the press, but reducing the need for abortion, surely a goal as I have written many times that is common ground. Although I’m not sure why there isn’t a commitment to reduce pregnancies among teenagers rather than it being a topic to be “addressed”, the statement does support the agenda laid out on the White House web site for the new administration:

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

What’s curious then is that among the fifteen leaders who have been named to the new Advisory Council, only Rabbi David Saperstein from the Union for Reform Judaism is an outspoken supporter of women's reproductive choice, although several of the named persons are vocal anti-choice supporters. Given the President's public commitments and the published White House agenda I note above, the lack of denomination and religious organization leaders who are known to be supporters of these issues and who have expertise working on them is troubling and disappointing. It’s also deeply troubling that only one of the council members is a woman religious leader, that only one third are women, and that none are out gay and lesbian religious or secular leaders.

The last is particularly concerning because the President in establishing the office left in place a Bush executive order that s specifically authorizes religion-based employment discrimination in publicly funded programs, what seems like a reversal of candidate Obama’s strong statement in July: “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them or against the people you hire on the basis of their religion.”

The good news is that there are still ten openings on the Advisory Committee. On Wednesday, we sent Rev. Joshua DuBois, the new head of the office, a congratulatory letter introducing the work of the Religious Institute and our network of more than 4400 religious leaders committed to sexual justice. I’ll be calling him for a meeting next week. We will be sending the White House a letter with the names of religious leaders who are committed to sexual justice and knowledgeable about reducing teenage pregnancy and unintended pregnancy prevention for their consideration.

I am mindful of the President's call to reach out an open hand, rather than a clenched fist. Although we agree with our colleagues at Americans United and The Interfaith Alliance that we might have preferred to see an end to this program, we are prepared to work with it and the Council to be sure that a progressive religious voice is represented and that its recommendations are consistent with the President's commitments.

Leave a comment and tell us who you would like to see us suggest for consideration for the remaining 10 slots.

A Call to the Obama Administration for Sexual Justice

The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing has sent a letter to President Obama and key members of the new administration calling for a vigorous commitment to sexual justice. The key components of a new agenda for sexual justice are:

*An end to the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and a call for the first federal support for comprehensive sexuality education.

*Full access to affordable, high-quality sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception, emergency contraception, abortion, prenatal care, adoption, HIV/STI prevention and treatment, and safe and proven assisted reproductive technologies. We also urge support for a global HIV/AIDS program free of abstinence-only restrictions.

*Full equality – including marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act – for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and their families. We specifically ask the President to reconsider his hesitations about marriage equality, yet support his commitment to civil unions and rescinding DOMA.

You can read our letter here. Many of these issues are already part of the White House agenda; all however will need the support of all of us to assure that they become a reality. You can let the President know that you support the Religious Institute’s sexual justice priorities. Our voices, as people of faith who support sexual justice, will make a difference.

Obama, an anti-abortion poster child?

Since I'm out of town, I've asked Dr. Kate Ott, associate director of the Religious Institute, to post about this disturbing new ad that came out on the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision:

*********************
During the President’s Inauguration, Catholic Vote ran an advertisement on BET (Black Entertainment Television) that used Barack Obama’s story as an anti-abortion tale.

My first reaction to this ad was, “How disrespectful to Barack Obama! . . . to use him, a historical anomaly, to vilify women and men struggling to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy; to use a man who clearly has stood up time and again for abortion access and women’s reproductive healthcare and choice; to use, and worse to distort, the circumstances of his birth, all for an advertisement!"

Here are my second, third and fourth reactions.

We do not know the potential fame or folly for which our children are destined. To base decisions solely on the unknown possibility of a pregnancy is flagrantly dismissive of the other lives involved in that decision and sets up our children for unrealistic, unattainable futures. We do not know who our children will become; we only know how well we can support them, provide for them, and give of ourselves to them. In the Religious Institute's Open Letter on Abortion as a Moral Decision, we say, “The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly. It is precisely because life and parenthood are so precious that no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term. We support responsible procreation, the widespread availability of contraception, prenatal care and intentional parenting.”

There is no other visually identified person in this advertisement except a floating fetus. That’s a medical impossibility. Removing a woman’s body from the visual message does more than make us focus on the fetus; it forces us to create a false separation between a pregnant woman and the fetus in her uterus. They are inextricably intertwined, as are their lives and decisions about their futures. Abortion is not an abstract act; why must we continue to erase the physical presence of the moral agents in these decisions – women? This separation diminishes our ability to grasp the true moral complexity of an abortion decision. The advertisement stresses “broken, abandoned and struggle” as the descriptive circumstances into which Obama was born. Barack Obama’s mother and father were well educated and had family support systems that allowed them to make a choice about this pregnancy, which is not the case in all unwanted pregnancies. I don’t even think we can surmise (without hearing from his mother, which is no longer possible) if this was an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.

My fourth reaction is that the advertisement is a new version of the old ethical argument that “absolute respect for human life” is the only moral principle upon which to judge abortion, and its only application is to prioritize the life of the fetus. In almost no other moral deliberations do we actively deny other moral principles, such as justice or love of neighbor. The advertisement coercively limits the scope of our moral imagination and denies how context influences moral choice. “The ability to choose an abortion should not be compromised by economic, educational, class or marital status, age, race, geographic location or inadequate information” (our Open Letter again), but in reality it is. The choice to have an abortion is always a moral choice; women are always capable moral agents; moral decision-making requires deliberation of multiple principles.

I haven’t even touched on the racial implications of airing this advertisement on BET during the inauguration of the first black President of the United States. This, I think, has more to do with the racist and sexist moral character of the group supporting and contributing to the ad, not the moral decision of women to have an abortion.

Our moral struggle should be one that sees racism, poverty, and heterosexism as factors that destroy communities and place women and men in uncompromisingly difficult moral decisions – not one that uses historical events as an opportunity for moral exploitation.

One More On Rick Warren -- Who Would You Have Liked?

Religious Dispatches asked me to write a piece on Friday evening.



Read it here: http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/election08/887/would_obama_have_chosen_a_racist_for_inauguration_



On several list servs and blogs, people have asked who might have been a better choice, and if there even are pro-lgbt and pro-choice evangelicals or African American ministers.



Yes and yes. The Religious Institute clergy network includes both. Rev. Lowery is both.



It also includes outstanding women clergy who didn't make the short list either. Half of our clergy network are women.



So, I've been thinking about who I wished had been selected, who are members of our network or who would have been a signal that evangelical viewpoints are welcome too.



Tell me who YOU might have suggested.



My short list of nationally recognized religious leaders who would be inclusive:

Rev. Bill Sinkford, President of the UUA

Rev. John Thomas, President of the UCC, President-elect Obama's religious home for the past 20 years

Rabbi David Saperstein, Union for Reform Judaism, who did the invocation before the nomination

Sister Joan Chittister, Benedictine nun and author

Bishop Yvette Flunder, founder of the Fellowship Churches

Rev. Tony Campolo, my personal favorite evangelical minister

Rev. Martin Marty, beloved American religious historian who would have crossed across almost all lines

That's just a start...who might you have suggested if asked?

Senator Obama and Support for Lesbian and Gay Persons

There is a lot of buzz going on today about Senator Obama including Donnie McClurkin in an upcoming gospel tour of South Carolina.

Now, I have to admit until this morning I had never heard of Mr. McClurkin, but he is a Grammy award winning gospel singer and also apparently according to Wikepedia and news reports, a person who claims his desire for sex with men was cured through prayer. There seems to be some disagreement about whether he is anti-gay, but in response to criticism, the Obama campaign posted this statement today on its web site:

I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country. I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.

Some commentators are calling for the Senator to disinvite Rev. McClurkin, but I am frankly pleased with how much better Obama seems to be getting in affirming lesbian and gay rights. Remember, this is the man who needed 24 hours to get it right about General Pace's homophobic comments.

I don't believe that people can change their sexual orientation through prayer - or therapy - but I do believe that people can choose their behaviors, and perhaps that is what has changed for Rev. McClurkin. More importantly, I believe in the right to free speech, and that the cure for hate speech isn't censorship but more speech.

So if I was advising the Senator, I'd encourage him to include a gospel singer or another minister who affirms sexual and gender diversity in this upcoming tour, and to take the time to reiterate his support for full inclusion. We hope Obama might borrow from our "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Sexual and Gender Diversity":

"Sexual and gender oppression can no longer be portrayed as virtuous and morally defensible."
I