Religious right got their "abortion reduction" as a top goal of the Faith-Based Council.

[madfloridian]

They succeeded in turning a woman's right to make her medical decisions with her own doctor into a wedge issue to win elections.

It took them years, but they did succeed. With all the economic problems facing our country, with all the people out of work with no insurance, no health care...their issue of "abortion reduction" had made it to the top of the agenda now in a Democratic administration.

We allowed the religious right to control the terminology until it was no longer a matter of a women and her doctor making decisions. It became about something the religious right had used as a wedge issue which has now become "abortion reduction". The use of that term gives off negative vibes. It still is about a woman's choice. But now the Faith-Based council gets to advise Obama on the issue, and most of the council are anti-choice...by a huge majority.

It is right there at the top of the OFBNP list along with poverty and climate change and responsible fatherhood.

When did reducing abortions become equal in importance to climate change and poverty and the terrible economic situation? How did that happen?

In the words of the head of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Josh DuBois.

DuBois reiterated the OFBNP's agenda that will be shaped by its advisory council: promoting responsible fatherhood, reducing the need for abortion, encouraging interfaith cooperation, addressing poverty and climate change, and "integrating community-based organizations in the economic recovery."

The Sweeping Agenda of the OFBNP.

Here is more from that speech given last week-end by DuBois and covered by the American Prospect:

The office was created, DuBois said, because "the president believes we have significant challenges at home and across the globe." He mentioned broken school systems, prohibitive health-care costs, and inter-religious conflicts at home and abroad.

"The president strongly believes we can't solve these challenges here in Washington, we can't solve them on our own, we have to connect with individuals and families and communities all across the country, and that includes community-based groups and faith-based organizations as well. The role of my office is to form partnerships between the government and those organizations to serve people in need and advance common good."

Thankfully, Obama has jettisoned the raison-d'etre of Bush's faith-based initiative, which purportedly was to "level the playing field" for faith-based groups. That justification was nothing more than a Rovian skid-greasing to give electorally valuable faith-based groups greater access to government cash.

By laying out Obama's expansive plan for the OFBNP, and the sprawling policy role the president has given his 25-member advisory council, DuBois ultimately raised more questions than answers about why religion -- and politically active religious figures -- must play such a prominent role in carrying out the administration's goals.

Exactly, why do we need religious figures to accomplish those goals?

There is more on the purposes and agenda of the OFBNP from a Texas Baptist news journal. It verifies what was in the speech by DuBois.

Faith-based council still finding its footing

The overhaul of the office centers on an expanded mission to go beyond matching faith-based groups with government funds, advisory council members said in recent interviews. One of the biggest changes is asking religious leaders to help shape policy on a number of hot-button social issues, including abortion.

...The council is charged with helping shape policy in four areas—economic recovery, abortion reduction, interfaith dialogue and responsible fatherhood. McKenzie, for example, plans to focus her work on the fatherhood program.

Also concentrating on the fatherhood issues is Tony Dungy with his close ties to the Promise Keepers. Dungy withdrew when appointed to the Faith-Based Council, but he working on advising President Obama on the fatherhood issues. The Promise Keepers believe women should be submissive to their husbands.

The Promise Keepers, a group funded and supported by right-wing, anti-women's rights, anti-abortion, and anti-gay organizations such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ, preaches that men are the "spiritual leaders" of the family and that women must submit to their husbands. Promise Keepers Founder Bill McCartney has been a featured speaker at Operation Rescue events, where he has declared that abortion has become "a second civil war." One of the Promise Keepers spokespeople is Mark DeMoss of the DeMoss family, whose foundation pours millions of dollars into religious right causes including the anti-abortion advertisement "Life, What a Beautiful Choice.
Promise Keepers going global.

Again, another "how did that get on the national agenda" issue. Promise Keepers believe women should be submissive to their husbands. How did abortion and fatherhood become government issues?

I agree with Sarah Posner's questioning of the fact that two of the top goals of the OFBNP are reducing abortions and responsible fatherhood....right along side poverty, climate change, and the economy. She wonders why we need religious figures to accomplish the goals of the council.

DuBois did not explain why religious figures were needed to help shape "responsible fatherhood" initiatives, a mandate that has been criticized by feminist theologians and others for overemphasizing the role of religion in defining family and gender roles.

He did claim that government stands in the way of what he called "healthy family formation." Obama, DuBois said, "thinks the federal government can do more to eliminate barriers to healthy family formation and encourage families to come together and encourage responsible fatherhood." DuBois did not specify what those barriers were, nor did he elaborate upon the "many inefficiencies in the federal government that actually drive families apart."

Again, more questions: If that is true, how will the religious advisory council alleviate that? And if the advisory council has another role -- to help define what a "healthy family" is -- how will the theo-conservative views of many of its members factor in?

I am having trouble understanding how the "hot-button" issue of abortion got into the purpose of this council. Unfortunately, it did, though. The vast majority of the 25 members of the council are not pro-choice at all. The figures vary but the highest number of pro-choice I have seen listed is six....and several of them are not so much pro-choice as wanting to regulate the number of abortions. If you want to regulate the number of abortions, then you are not really in favor of pro-choice....that means letting a woman and her doctor decide.

On some issues we can not nor should we try to make "common ground."

Making common ground with extremists?

From comments by Frances Kissling, Carlton Veazey, and Steven Jacobs

The lack of a sensible legislative agenda on contraception, economic support for women who wish to continue pregnancies, and adoption reform is disturbing, but most disturbing is the fifth-century religious view of women that permeates the movement. Women are presented as victims, unable to make choices about what is best when deciding to be sexual and when they are pregnant. In the truly progressive faith community, we hold that women have a right as moral agents to decide what is best when they face unintended pregnancy, and we believe that women are not by and large victims—they are the authors of their lives. Given the history of religious oppression, a movement that speaks or advocates for women’s concerns needs to advocate for women as moral adults.

Religious leaders who respect women’s consciences, their dignity, and their human rights will find it hard to make common cause with a religious movement that does not lift up those values. We suggest that proponents of abortion reduction seeking common ground go back to the drawing board. They might actually try to talk to those in the religious community who are strongly pro-choice.

I think we can't keep ceding issues in the name of being "moderate" and seeking a "middle ground" with extremists.

There's a danger there in giving control to those who do not seek moderation.

[leftstreet]

1. There shouldn't even BE a govt funded "faith based council"

:grr: :grr: :grr:

If these people want to get together and worry over this shit, let them. But leave my representative government and my tax dollars out of it!

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Amen!

[madfloridian]

7. I agree.

Religious groups should not have that much say in our government.

[Kitty Herder]

17. Absolutely. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. The head of our representative government DOES want this

He made no secret about this before he was elected.

[OHdem10]

2. The more thingss "change" the more they stay the same.

[msongs]

4. Obama's actions speak louder than his rhetoric regarding seperation of church/state nt

[Ocracoker16]

5. It is totally inappropriate to have the FBC focus on abortion reduction

I really don't think that the FBC should have any role in shaping abortion policy. I am especially concerned since the FBC seems to be compposed of mostly right wing Christians who are very anti-abortion. It doesn't seem like there are many liberal Christians on the FBC. I think that the religous right spends far too much of its energy on shoving their pro-life position down the throats of others. Now as members of the FBC they can continue their efforts with the blessing of the government. They can increase their efforts with the added benefit of using the taxpayer dime. How can they say that there is separation of church and state? The FBC sounds like a group of right wing Christians that are going to use this government connection to impose their religious beliefs on all Americans. I am not even going to comment on the insane idea that the FBC should focus on responsible fatherhood.

I think that the FBC shouldn't exist if this is how it is going to operate. As a liberal Christiian, I would see the FBC as being a group of religous leaders who are committed to social justice. These leaders along with other neighborhood activists would keep President Obama aware of what was going on outside of the Washington bubble. They would put pressure on Obama to address these issues both in policy decisions and in legislation. Obama would then help faith and neighborhood activists adress these issues on the grassroots level. Funding would be provided to groups that could demonstrate the difference they already make in the community and show how a small government grant could increase the effectiveness of their program. Could they serve more individuals or could they perhaps offer additional services?

I would also insist that faith groups refrain from evangelism. The government should never assist a group that only serves those who adhere to specific religous beliefs. The government would pull the plug on those who couldn't serve all persons. There is no reason why proselytization should be supported by the government. I currently help serve lunch to homeless people who come to the church looking for food or needing a shower. We have been serving over 60 people a day in the past few months which is an increase for us. Ofcourse, the church has our homeless service in the budget. However, we usually get 50% of our funding from the Fannie Mae Walk for the Homeless. That no longer exists so we are all trying to provide food, hygiene items, and underwear and socks without seeking reimbursement. Why couldn't we get a small amount of money so we don't have to send people away empty handed? We are the only homeless service in our ward and the demand is great. How can they give these right wingers money to use to promote a pro-life agenda?

[madfloridian]

6. Poverty, social justice....I can see that.

You are right. They should not be advocating anything about abortion reduction or how a father should act.

That should be out of their jurisdiction.

[bertman]

8. I'm so sick of these people being given a prominent seat at the tables of government.

This sucks.

I'm very disappointed with President Obama's failure to promote a strong separation of church and state.

[madfloridian]

12. Here's a list of the people who get to advise Obama on women's rights.

There are at the most 6 pro-choice, and some of them are for reduction of abortion..which is really not pro-choice.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/06/the-white-house-god-squad/

That makes 19 anti-choice members.

[Hekate]

9. As a pro-choice feminist, may I point out two things: Obama's legislative record and ...

... that no matter who we are we would all like to see abortions reduced.

I have supported Planned Parenthood for some 40 years, in part because I too would like to see abortions "reduced." Has Planned Parenthood expressed its "disappointment" with President Obama yet? They gave him top marks as a pro-choice legislator.

Hekate

[madfloridian]

10. It's not about what anyone thinks about abortion.

It's about the fact that the religious community kept pushing and pushing. They won. They get to control the agenda for women.

Quite frankly, that is what it is about to me.

It's about control. Women are considered lesser beings who can't make their own decisions.

Whose job do you think it is to control who has an abortion? Just curious.

[Hekate]

13. I have confidence in THIS president's ability to direct policies the way he said he would. ...

So far he seems to have done so. So far he has not abandoned his principles.

Every step of the way since Election Night there has been outrage here over one thing or another that President Obama has said or not said, or over someone he has or has not invited to the table, or over someone he has or has not appointed to a high or low office.

And yet we have gone forward. Obama is getting the job done. I won't reiterate the information that has been gathered in several DU threads, but you can look up the substantial list of his accomplishments so far if you want to.

The RW fundies are no longer in power. Obama may be giving them a seat at the table, but they are not running the show. He told us that science is now back in its proper place. Under the heading of Science would include Health, which includes Women's Health. A big part of women's health care is access to family planning, up to and including access to abortion. I have every confidence that under President Obama this access will improve and be protected.

The RW fundies (who do not constitute anywhere near a majority of "the religious community") and their puppetmasters are loathesome to me, and they will continue to push their agenda. We will continue to resist. We need to remain aware of who they are and who backs them -- but this I am confident of: Obama will protect a woman's right to choose.

He said of bipartisanship, "I am an eternal optimist, but I am not a sap."

In a year's time, if events have proven me wrong I will say so.

As for your final rhetorical question tossed at me: you know the answer to that.

Hekate

[madfloridian]

14. My post is not about Obama. It is about who controls women's rights.

I supported him 100%. I do not trust many around him.

It was a good question, who controls women's rights. Most of the 25 are anti-choice, some rabidly so.

[Egnever]

40. And what exactly do you think they can accomplish?

You say they won! which is complete crap. They have no say whatsoever in abortion laws. As is usual lately your conclusions are way over the top.

Your other post today claims the DLC won us the election when you know damn well it was Howard deans pioneering the way and Obamas follow up that did it.

Its almost as if you buy into every damn thing you read and then regurgitate it as Gospel even though you know better.

[shimmergal]

34. Hekate, I so

agree with you on this!

As for the question "who controls who makes the decision?" It's ALWAYS the woman. Even under a regime where it's illegalized, desperate women find ways around that. It's just that we don't want to have to go back to those days again. In fact, the NUMBER of abortions would not decrease all that much... though official statistics might say otherwise.

[madfloridian]

11. I don't see anyone from Planned Parenthood on the council.

Maybe I missed their names.

I too support Planned Parenthood. I used to support NARAL until they endorsed Lieberman against Lamont.

I see a lot of anti-choice ministers and advocates.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/06/the-white-house-god-squad/

[Bette Noir]

16. Thank you.

We shouldn't be letting the enemy characterize us as pro-abortion. We're pro-choice, in the sense that we have compassion on women who are in an impossible spot.

[Bette Noir]

15. Wanna reduce abortions? I'll tell you how to reduce abortions:

Provide good education on preventing pregnancy. Make sure contraceptives are cheap and readily available. Raise the minimum wage. Provide universal health care. Provide subsidized child care at schools and in the community.

Do that, and I'd bet good money that abortions would drop 80, 90%. Desperate women terminate their pregnancies: reduce desperation, and they won't need to.

In the meantime, how about changing the terminology we use? Every time they refer to our side as "pro-abortion," we refer to them as "compulsory pregnancy." How popular will they be, as the Compulsory Pregnancy party?

[bertman]

18. Excellent points, Better Noir. Statistics certainly back up the rise in abortions as being

attributable to reduced information and birth control available to women.

As for the COMPULSORY PREGNANCY label, that is perfect. Not pro-life, but PRO-COMPULSORY PREGNANCY. I'll be using that one from now own.

[madfloridian]

23. Abstinence education has caused a rise in part.

Information is not given out about birth control methods.

[bertman]

24. Definitely. And if you need confirmation of this, just ask Levi and Bristol.

[baldguy]

19. If they *really* want to reduce the number of abortions, they have to do two things.

1- Comprehensive sex education for children, beginning when they realize boys & girls are different - kindergarten.

2- Free availability of birth control for everyone, beginning at the onset of puberty - currently 9-10 yrs old.


Of course, their crusade isn't aimed at reducing the need for abortions - it's about controlling people.

[noonwitch]

20. I'm Pro Choice and I want the number of abortions reduced

I recognize that abortion is a sometimes necessary procedure, for whatever reason. It's not the government's right to decide when it is okay and when it isn't. The independently living woman's rights should always supercede those of the fetus.

There are always going to be cases of health risks to the mother and rape/incest where women and teens will be seeking abortions. Hopefully, medical science will reduce the numbers in the first group.

As far as the accidental pregnancies, well, there probably is more we can do to help women make better decisions regarding birth control and relationships. That is the area in which a reduction could be made in the numbers of abortions.

[madfloridian]

21. Do you want the religious community deciding the issue?

That is my point, they got their way.

Their wedge issues have become one of the top four goals of the president's faith council.

So you want to reduce abortions? Do you approve of taking the decision away from women and doctors and putting in the hands of the faith council of which at least 19 are anti-choice?

[shimmergal]

35. No one (of us) wants

the "religious community" deciding. (Although may I point out there are plenty of "religious entities" that have a more nuanced view on abortion than those 19 council members.)

But maybe giving them a council seat allows them a place to vent harmlessly. Meanwhile we can work towards emphasizing the "neighborhood" council of it, which Obama's community development work has certainly given us a boost toward. Let's try to accomplish this, instead of yelling that those clergymen have been granted a "right" they don't actually have. Say it enough times and they might actually come to believe it.

[immoderate]

26. They want to reduce abortions by controlling sex.

They are certainly not in favor of promoting birth control and family planning.

--imm

[madfloridian]

27. That is true. Most of them are not promoting those things.

That is why I am so concerned and keep asking WHO gets to decide how to limit abortions. :shrug:

The passion behind this wedge issue has never been family planning, but control over the agenda by religious groups. Control over women and control over people and their sex lives.

[madfloridian]

22. Pro-choice means the woman gets to make her medical and health decisions......

not the government, not the religious community.

Our party has allowed women to be marginalized in the name of getting along with the religious community.

[alarimer]

25. As usual you have hit the nail right on the head.

This faith-based business bothers me greatly. Obama is far too accommodating to these right-wing blowhards.
Has he even met with Congressional progressives yet? He sure bends over backwards for Republicans and Blue Dogs though.

[madfloridian]

28. It's not "pro-choice" if your decisions are made for you by others...

Faith-based councils should not be regulating what women do, they should not be defining responsible fatherhood.

How did it get this far along?

Why aren't more of us really upset?

And thanks for the nice words.

[Union Yes]

30. GOP uses it as a rally call at election time. To lure the antibots vote.

The GOP controlled govt from 00-06.

They've always campaigned on banning choice, yet choice remains legal to this day.

Now I'm as prochoice as anyone on this site. But I still wonder to this day..

Why didn't the GOP push harder to ban choice when they controlled govt?

My theory..

There's little profit in banning choice. In other words they seem to only legislate when it leads to financial gain. Either for a corporate constituent or their own campaign coffers.

They don't gain financially from banning choice. Therefore, the debate largely sat on the back burner from 00-06.

Don't get me wrong, many GOP'ers did want to push for overturning Roe vs Wade. But they were largely ignored by party leadership that favored a corporate only agenda.

Again, there's no profit in banning choice. Therefore it's not a front and center issue during legislative sessions.

It's only front and center during campaign season. To lure the antibot vote.


That said..

The GOP'ers that DO want to ban choice have an ultimate motive.

Banning choice in their minds will lead to banning what they view as the greatest evil of all.

Birth control.

Fundies have been seeing red ever since BC was approved back in the 60's

[madfloridian]

31. Well, you make some good points.

But now they are right on the verge of getting to reduce the number of abortions to almost nothing. If they do, they will have to try to limit birth control. They are in a vicious circle of their own making...

Trouble is that Faith-Based Council has apparently a minimum of 19 of 25 members who are anti-choice. They are a great majority on the council that will advise Obama on it.

So they may get their way. Remember it was our Democratic chairman who invited an anti-choice group to the DNC to present their 95/10 Initiative

The 95-10 Initiative

A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy. The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.

If indeed they do succeed in reducing abortion by 95% , then it will no longer be a matter of choice for a woman. That is a drastic cut, who is going to be in charge of deciding who the 95% of women are who don't get an abortion.

If we define it as needing to be reduced or done away with, it takes it out of the realm of medical decisions.

I wonder if women decided that men should be regulated in getting vasectomies, if we questioned doctors who did such procedures....I wonder how that would go over.

[feslen]

32. re: faith organizations and governments should NOT be involved because...

Isn't that the point of the Constitution? that religion/religious ideas should not and could not be decision-breakers in State Laws?
aren't they supposed to be separate entities?


I am totally pro-choice, and I understand the reduction of abortion, but it should NOT be up to the government, church or anyone else. It should be up to the woman whether she wants to or not. It's between HER and GOD, right? not some organization. As a guy, I agree with you madfloridian, why do the women have to suffer? Why don't MEN get vasectomies...or other more painful reductions? I am pretty sure the decisions would be totally different then.



If we allow the government and religious institutions control the choices of women, what's next? Whatever happened to respect the privacy of the individual?
If they do this 95-10 B.S., the civil rights movement would take another hit...augh. We the People should be outraged at this utter crap.

[madfloridian]

33. Agree. We have a council based on religion....giving the president advice

on women's isues.

It's alarming.

[Geek_Girl]

37. It also tells you a how stupid the antibot voters are

The GOP has never delivered on abortion. And some of there favorite "pro-life" Politicians like Reagan and Bush were strongly pro-choice. Reagan was govern of the first state to make abortion legal. Bush I and his wife both worked for family planning in their state of Texas. George W. Bush got a girl knocked and his family helped her get an abortion when abortion was illegal.

But these stupid antibot voters don't care about that. As long as when these politicians run for President they pay them lip service. It's absolutely moronic. The GOP has never delivered on abortion. It's just a wedge issue to keep the sheeple voting for them.

[defendandprotect]

36. The population has exploded and is exploding -- INCREASING BIRTH CONTROL should be topic #1--!!

IMO, the religous right is "drowning" with the GOP Repugs ---

WHY is Obama fooling around with anything like this ---

and most of all, why in the hell is he giving any religion taxpayer money?

[scrinmaster]

38. There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce the number of abortions.

That said, they want to do it by restricting access to abortion, instead of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies by promoting birth control.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Look at how well "playing nice" with the fundies has gone lately in Pakistan

I think Obama is getting the idea about sucking up to the reactionaries to a certain degree, but I don't think he gets the message about the theocrats. He's done well by cozying up with Religion Incorporated, but they play for keeps.