Prayers for the Supreme Court

Yesterday, the Religious Institute staff co-led a faith rally before the Supreme Court hearings on contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Care Act.  I've written about that elsewhere but I wanted to share my comments from the worship service.  I'm delighted to tell you that as of yesterday nearly 10,000 people had signed our petition with the National Coalition of American Nuns. (If you haven't done so, please go to http://bit.ly.com/nuns4bc right away!)

Here are my opening words and prayer before the Supreme Court yesterday:

We are so pleased to welcome you to this faith rally, this worship service, and this important day.  I’m Rev. Debra Haffner, President and CEO of the Religious Institute, a multifaith organization committed to raising faithful voices for sexuality education, reproductive justice, and the full inclusion of women and LGBTQ people in faith communities and society.

I stand here today representing thousands of people of faith who have demonstrated their commitment to universal access to birth control.  I bring with me the names and hopes of more than 9800 people of faith who are standing with us and will have their names on a banner that will be at the Supreme Court later this morning.  I bring with me more than 45 leaders of national faith organizations that have endorsed a national statement on behalf of birth control coverage.  I bring with me the more than 6400 religious leaders who have signed our Religious Declaration calling for a faith based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights, including access to contraception and more than 1200 clergy persons who have endorsed the Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Family Planning. 

Please respond to my statements with:

       We are people of faith.

We believe that all persons should be free to make personal decisions about their reproductive lives, their health and the health of their families.

        We are people of faith.

We affirm that ensuring equal access to contraceptives through insurance coverage is a moral good.

         We are people of faith.

We know that the sin is not family planning; the sin is denying women coverage and access to services they want and they need.

         We are people of faith. 

It is because life is sacred, that we believe that every woman must be able to plan her pregnancies intentionally without governmental interference and without her employer in her bedroom.

          We are people of faith.   

We support religious freedom.  Religious freedom means that each individual has the right to exercise their own beliefs and the right not to have others’ beliefs forced upon them.  We know that individuals have religious freedom and that corporations do not. 

We are people of faith.

We gather today – as people from many traditions with many beliefs – surrounded by a cloud of witnesses here with us in spirit -- united by our hopes and our prayers for the wisdom and eloquence of the attorneys, the compassion and hearts of the justices, and the lives of the millions of women who are counting on us to assure their right to plan their families based on their own faith and conscience.

And so may we say together, so that all who listen will understand, that religious leaders and people of faith support women’s moral agency and universal access to contraception:

            We are people of faith. 

May it be so.

Religious Leaders Support Family Planning!

I'm delighted to tell you that this morning, the Religious Institute released its new Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Family Planning, endorsed by more than 1000 religious leaders from across the theological spectrum.  

The new Open Letter  recognizes that all women must have equal access to contraception, and states that “the denial of [coverage for] family planning services effectively translates into coercive childbearing and is an insult to human dignity.” The release of this statement coincides with the recent Obama Administration release of proposed regulations, which affirmed its commitment to assure all women have birth control access without cost or administrative hurdles.

Too many of the press reports on the regulations equated the opposition of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to the inclusion of family planning services in the American Care Act with all religious institutions.  It is a critical misunderstanding to equate the minority of those religious leaders who have fought the coverage of birth control during the past year with threats and lawsuits, with the majority of people of faith in the United States who support access to contraception. Let us be clear that support for religious freedom means that women must have the right to accept or reject the principles of their own faith without restrictions, regardless of their place of employment or geographical location. It is unethical for any single religious voice to claim to speak for all religious people in this debate.

More than a dozen major religious denominations have policies that support contraception. In addition, more than 8 in ten women at risk of unintended pregnancy use modern contraceptive methods, regardless of religious affiliation.

The 1000 endorsers of the new Open Letter come from 45 states and more than 35 religious traditions, including each of the major mainline Protestant denominations, Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic, and Muslim traditions. Participating faith leaders include 8 current and former presidents of national denominations including 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), the Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins (Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)), and the Reverend Nancy Wilson, (Metropolitan Community Churches); seminary presidents including 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) and faculty from sixteen seminaries;  heads of more than twenty national religious organizations, including the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good (Dr. Richard Cizik), Women of Reform Judaism (Rabbi Marla Feldman), the Beatitudes Society (Rev. Anne Howard), Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (Rev. Harry Knox), Catholics for Choice (Jon O’Brien), the Methodist Federation for Social Action (Jill A. Warren) and Muslims for Progressive Values (Ms. Ani Zonneveld); and prominent theologians from diverse perspectives including the Rev. Dr. Tony Campolo, the Rev. Dr. Larry Greenfield, Dr. Mary Hunt, the Right Reverend Gene Robinson, and Dr. Elizabeth Schussler. The Reverends Jones, Watkins, and Wilson all recently were worship leaders at the National Prayer Service. 

The Open Letter was developed in 2012 as a direct response to increasing attempts to deny or restrict family planning access. The Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Family Planning was developed at a colloquium of a dozen renowned faith leaders and theologians sponsored by the Religious Institute. Participants included nationally prominent theologians and ordained clergy from Jewish, Roman Catholic, Protestant (evangelical and mainline denominations), Muslim and Unitarian Universalist traditions.





To read the entire letter, view the endorsers, or see the press release, go to www.religiousinstitute.org/olfp

Diverse Multifaith Leaders Support Family Planning -- Of Course

     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.”  

MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS LEADERS SUPPORT BIRTH CONTROL

I am in disbelief that contraception has become a political football this electoral season.

99% of American women use contraception. 99%. It gives to meaning to "we are the 99%."

Yet, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have called an all out attack on birth control coverage in health care reform -- and each of the GOP contenders have joined them. Their anti-women, anti-sexuality positions are being cloaked in a "religious liberty" argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Today, I joined 22 other national mainstream religious leaders in issuing a statement on behalf of birth control coverage in health care reform. You can read it at

www.religiousinstitute.org/news

Stand with us and speak out!

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

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

“Re-introducing Corporal Punishment”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Family Planning Saves Lives -- Get Involved

I started my professional career 35 years ago this summer at the Population Institute, where as the Director of the Resource Center, I developed fact sheets on population and family planning.

Last night, I read two outstanding articles on how vital family planning services still are to the world's women and how much unmet need still exists.

Dr. Willard Cates, President of Family Health International, wrote in the new issue of Contraception that family planning is the essential link to achieving all eight Millennium Development Goals. Family planning will help end poverty and hunger; prolongs education; empowers women; saves infants lives; reduces the risks of abortion and childbearing and thus reduces maternal mortality; prevents HIV transmission by women to their babies; and promotes global partnerships. A "new" fact for me was learning that family planning is "five times cheaper than conventional green technologies for reducing CO2 climate change."

Susan Cohen wrote an excellent article, "Family Planning and Safe Motherhood: Dollars and Sense" for the Guttmacher Policy Review. that concludes that "doubling the modest, current global investment in family planning and maternal and newborn care -- to just over $24 billion combined annually - would reduce maternal mortality by at least 70%, half the number of newborn deaths and do so at a lower total cost than investing in maternal and newborn care alone." Her analysis also concludes, "the most effective way to reduce the incidence of abortion overall, including unsafe abortion, is to increase use of modern contraception - making it easier for women to avoid unintended pregnancy in the first place."

The moral imperative was clear to me that first summer I went to work after college. It's the same today. Family planning saves lives.

Get involved. Join our Faithful Voices Network to learn more or sign up to host a Rachel Sabbath in your congregation next year.

The Pill and Mother's Day: A Personal Reflection

Today is Mother's Day and my husband and son prepared a lovely brunch for me, my sister, and my mother. There were flowers, cards, and more carbs than I've eaten in a month. I felt very well taken care of, if not a bit nostalgic for the days of homemade painted macaroni necklaces.

Today is also the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill. Or more technically, the 50th anniversary of the day the birth control pill was approved by the FDA.

I first learned about "the pill" from my mother. She was of that generation that used the first high estrogen pills, and I remember asking her what the funny circle with the white and blue pills that were on the kitchen counter were. I think I was about six. She told me that she and my father only wanted two children and the pills meant she could have that. I still can picture that discussion: it taught me that parenthood was a choice and that there were ways to avoid pregnancy.

Fast forward 13 years, and I went to the campus health center to get birth control pills. I hadn't yet had intercourse; indeed I felt like I was one of the last standing virgins on campus. But, I wanted to be prepared when I did fall in love and I knew that the pill was my best option for not becoming pregnant.

I used the pill at various times over the next twenty years -- as a new couple in love, after my daughter was born, during the period I was trying to decide if our family size was complete. I used the pill both as "family planning" for some years, but also as a way to separate sexual pleasure and intimacy from procreation.

It's in that last that "the pill" truly revolutionized women's lives. More so than any birth control method before it, oral contraceptives allowed us to experience sexual pleasure without risking our lives and futures. It allowed us to choose when we would become mothers safely, but also to choose pleasure and intimacy without risking unintended pregnancies. (I came of age sexually at what surely is one of the few times in world history when sex meant few consequences for women -- we had the pill, abortion was legal, and the two prevalent STDs were easily treated; that's not true for young women today or women in many parts of the world.)

I think we're still dealing as a culture and surely as religious institutions with what it means that procreation and pleasure are easily separated. But, I know today, that I am grateful beyond words for my two children -- and the era of modern contraception that made them planned and oh so wanted.

John Edwards: Could He Not Have Known About Contraception?

Last week, I blogged about Peter Orzag and the D.C. media scramble about what the headlines called his "love child."

Several people felt that I hadn't been hard enough on out of wedlock pregnancies. I countered that there was a major difference between a young, unemployed, poor single parent and the life circumstances of Mr. Orzag's partner.

I had promised I'd write more about out of wedlock pregnancies, and then the disaster in Haiti happened.

I started thinking about these issues again as we heard the announcement that John Edwards was indeed the father of his mistress's toddler.

I wrote more about it for Huffington Post earlier today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/john-edwards-you-did-know_b_431546.html

The bottom line for me is not a new public health campaign against out of wedlock births -- but one against unplanned pregnancies. It is unfathomable to me how men like Orzag and Edwards put themselves and their partners at risk of an unplanned pregnancy. Surely they know about contraception and condoms. What were they thinking? (Or it's clear what they were NOT thinking.)

As I've written here before, surely, despite differences about abortion, we can all agree that it is precisely because life and parenthood are so precious, that they should never begin carelessly.

Especially by people who know better.

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.

Family Planning Eliminated From the Stimulus: How DID THAT Happen?

So, I'm a little less in love today.

It's that moment when one realizes that one's newly found love isn't perfect.

The stimulus plan originally included a provision to make it easier for the states to use medicaid funding for family planning services for low income women. The Republicans vociferously disagreed, and the White House didn't push back -- at all -- but just removed the provision. See Christina Page's insightful blog over at RH RealityCheck, Et tu, Barack?

How easy it is to make the sexuality and reproductive health needs of women an issue that can be pushed to the side. Now, we can hope and work to make sure that family planning services are adequately funded in the federal budget so this isn't a death knoll -- but it's a good reminder that no matter who is the President and who controls the Congress, we need to not be complacent about speaking out.

Goodbye Gag Rule

I'm in love with the new President.

I've kept the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, People Magazine, and even last week's TV Guide, for the beautiful pictures.

I admit, I was a little worried when January 23rd came and went without a word about the gag rule. But on Friday, late afternoon, the President lifted it. What that means simply -- the U.S. will once again fund family planning programs around the world, most importantly the UNFPA.

To read more and to thank the President, go to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/birth-control/global-gag-rule-21019.htm

The most important way we can prevent unplanned pregnancies and save women's lives (from unsafe and illegal abortion fatalities) is to provide contraceptives as part of an overall strategy to empower women. Seems like common ground to me.

New Huffington Post: Unearthing Common Ground

I always feel a little like I'm cheating on you, my regular readers, when I write for Huffington Post. I hope you understand....

Often, I try out an idea here...and if it feels like it deserves a large public policy audience, we expand on it for the Huffington Post (which has a much larger readership than I do here.)

So, if you were interested in my posts on the new calls for common ground on abortion, I hope you'll go read me at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/unearthing-common-ground_b_147736.html

and hope that you'll add your comments and perspectives.

How to Reduce Abortions? Prevent Unintended Pregnancies in the First Place

There was a steady drumbeat of articles last week calling for new common ground on abortion in light of the election of a pro-choice President. Articles quotes such anti-choice religious leaders as David Gushee, Jim Wallis, Professor Kmeic, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good as calling in Gushee's words in the Baptist Press for "reducing the demand for abortion" by expanding adoption services and providing pregnant women with health care, child care, and education.

Missing from every one of these calls was a call to work to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place through sexuality education and contraceptive services.

These leaders use the Guttmacher Institute's research that shows that women often choose abortion for financial reasons and that poverty impacts the abortion rate. But what they fail to mention, is that it first affects the unintended pregnancy rate: that poor women are at least five times more likely to become pregnant unintentionally.

Here's what Guttmacher Institute's Susan Cohen wrote the last time this abortion reduction strategy was floated by Democrats for Life in 2006:

While it is theoretically possible that increased social supports for pregnant women and even more “adoption-positive” problem-pregnancy counseling could have some impact, neither can hope to approach the real reductions in the abortion rate that could be achieved by preventing unintended pregnancy in the first place.

That's what the science says -- and I also think it's the moral position. I've worked with thousands of women facing unintended pregnancies. They aren't looking for "abortion on demand"; with less than a handful of exceptions, they sat with me (and often their partners or their parents) and wept as they tried to decide what was best to do. They often did have financial concerns, but they were rarely short term (how would I pay for prenatal care or infant care?) but rather about how they could afford to raise a child (or in many cases another child in a family that already had them) to adulthood. And they too often didn't have partners who they wanted to spend their lives with or who could support them. In the words of one of colleagues, "they had too much responsibility already and too few resources, both personal and economic."

So, here's my suggestion for common ground. Let's stop talking about reducing the numbers of abortions as a goal by itself, and let's start talking as a country about reducing unintended pregnancies in the first place. We'll work with you to make sure that every pregnant woman who wants to carry her pregnancy to term can afford to do so and you'll work with us to reduce the number of women and couples who have to face an unintended, unplanned, and often unwanted pregnancy.

Sounds like a plan.

Hopefully the one that the Obama administration and the new Congress (as well as my evangelical colleagues) will adopt.

Religious Organizations Call on President-Elect Obama to Support Reproductive Rights

Nineteen faith-based organizations concerned with reproductive justice have issued a letter today to President-elect Obama. It sharply contrasts with the paper issued by the Catholic Bishops yesterday which called for the new President to uphold restrictions on abortion services. How lovely it is to know that people of faith have joined together to support women's and teenagers rights, here and around the world, AND that this new President is likely to follow our recommendations.

The letter begins:



Our faith communities, comprising millions of Americans, unite in a shared moral commitment to preserve the reproductive health of our nation. Though traditionally cast as a woman’s issue, we maintain that prioritizing reproductive health and justice is an integral part of achieving greater social justice for all. The ability to plan and care for one’s family is central to addressing the myriad social, political and economic concerns we face. Accessing comprehensive health care services safely and legally is inextricably linked to the ability of our country’s citizens and families to thrive. This is why we urge you to make these issues a priority in your administration.

It calls for access to comprehensive sexuality education, abortion services and contraceptive information and options. The letter specifically calls for the President-elect to:

*Work to end to the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage education
* Support the Freedom of Choice Act
*Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion services.
*Ensure contraceptive access for all women and men by increasing support and funding for Title X family planning clinics and for voluntary international family planning assistance.
*Protect and strengthen access to birth control, including emergency contraception.
*Restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
*Fully coordinate and integrate family planning with HIV prevention, care, and treatment programs.
*Repeal the Global Gag Rule (Mexico City Policy), which withholds much needed aid from family planning agencies that even mention abortion.

The letter was signed by:

American Friends Service Committee
Catholics for Choice
Christian Lesbians Out
Disciples for ChoiceDisciples Justice Action Network
Hadassah
Jewish Women International
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Lutheran Women’s Caucus
National Council of Jewish Women
NA’AMAT USA
Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church & Society
Union for Reform Judaism
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual

You can read the full letter here.

Could the Government Limit Your Access to Birth Control?

The answer is "You bet."

I've been wearing a button that says 1/20/09 for some time now. I've had people ask me if it's my birthday or anniversary (and even in one case, someone ask if it's when my baby is due!)...I ask them to think about what it might mean...and mostly people get it slowly, and most people nod in relief. With President Bush's approval ratings at their lowest ever, it's not even a risky act.

A lot of us who care about social and sexual justice (as well as the War and other issues) are counting down until the last days of this administration. It's been a long 8 years of fighting attacks. But lest we think that they might be too busy to worry about sexuality issues in their last six months, think again.

Yesterday, in a report in the NY Times, we learned that the Bush administration is offering one last significant offering to those who oppose abortion. To quote the NY Times:

"The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control." Those types of birth control -- the ones that about 40% of women use, such as birth control pills, patches, rings, IUDS, and emergency contraception. Those federal programs could unbelievably include family planning clinics, hospitals that provide emergency contraception to rape victims, prenatal clinics and the like.

The proposal defines abortion as "the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." Because certain birth control methods may prevent implantation, they would be included.

Other of my colleagues at sexual and reproductive health organizations will tell you why this is bad medical practice and why it will hurt poor and uninsured women. But, I am also appalled that once again this administration is trying to codify and privilege the teachings of some religions on when life begins over others.

The fact is that religious traditions have different beliefs on the value of fetal life, including when human life begins. Like many religious leaders, I do not believe that a fertilized ovum, zygote, or embryo is "the life of a human being" as this new federal definition would provide. But more, I find it (excuse the wording) inconceivable that those who oppose abortion are now making headway to oppose birth control methods that prevent unplanned pregnancies, with the support of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Surely if there is common ground between those who are pro-choice and those who oppose abortion it is that we should support the widespread availability of all medically safe methods of contraception. This proposal demonstrates how hollow those calls for common ground might really be. Let's see how quickly those who call for common ground on abortion to speak out into this latest attempt to control women's moral agency and rights.

Middle School Birth Control?

You have may seen the story last week about the Maine School Board that voted to allow its school based clinics to prescribe birth control.

Read my thoughts at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/good-news-about-adolescen_b_69345.html

(They only accept original blog entries on breaking news, so that's why that's there and not here...)

Deja Vu Appointment, All Over Again

Could this woman be smiling because she's just been named the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, which means she's now in charge of the nation's family planning program?

Dr. Susan Orr, like other recent Bush appointees to the position, actually opposes federal support for contraception. She is a former official with the anti-choice Family Research Council. According to news reports, she has fought against federal employees health insurance including contraception, has taught abstinence-only-until-marriage education, and cheered the Mexico City Gag Rule. I haven't found anything about whether she has actually worked against the Title X family planning program, which provides access to services for low income women, but I'm guessing she's not going to be a big supporter of services to adolescents.

It's hard to believe that the Bush administration keeps trying to appoint people who philosophically oppose the national commitment to the reproductive health needs of women (a program supported by more than 8 in 10 Americans) to run these programs. Once again, we need to ask Congress to investigate and block this appointment.

Let's remind people across the spectrum on abortion that as people of faith, it is precisely because life and parenthood are so precious, that we can all agree that it never be created carelessly or because services were not available. It would indeed be common ground to ask for a secretary of population affairs who supports family planning services.

Time for FOX and CBS to Evolve

As my regular readers know, I watch way too much television. If you aren't a TV watcher, you perhaps missed the debut of this clever TV ad by Trojan where pigs in a single bar evolve into caring, attractive men when they purchase a condom.

Or perhaps you were just watching the wrong channel, because CBS and Fox TV have refused to run these ads. According to the New York Times, here's what the Networks said:

"In a written response to Trojan, though, Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, “Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy.”

In its rejection, CBS wrote, “while we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative, we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions.”

That's right, the channels that bring us such sexually exploitative fare as the OC and the Victoria Secret specials think that advertising condoms is inappropriate and that pregnancy is not a health concern. (Both however take those ubiquitous erectile dysfunction ads that feature couples mostly too young for viagra and cialis in ridiculous outdoor settings. I've had more than one conversation with teenagers about what that older couple is doing in single bathtubs at the top of the hill holding hands!)

So, older couples having sex in ads and warnings about four hour erections? O.K. Bladder control? O.K. Unnecessary feminine hygiene products? O.K. Ads for anti-depressants that proclaim proudly "no sexual side effects"? O.K. Countless ads with half nude women selling everything from cars to toothpaste? O.K. Not to say anything about the more than seven sexual acts or references per hour on Prime Time television.

But, condom ads that don't mention disease? Nope, just too risque. Listen, if we can answer questions about four hour erections during the Super Bowl, we can handle the teachable moment this commercial might suggest. CBS and FOX, it's time to reconsider.

If you dare, watch the commercial yourself online at www.trojanevolve.com