President Richard Nixon once observed, “Flexibility is the first principle of politics.” But that brings up [...]]]>

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. – Matthew 6:24

President Richard Nixon once observed, “Flexibility is the first principle of politics.” But that brings up something I notice about some right-wing antagonists: how lithe they are in debate.

It is behavior progressive talk show hosts know well, particularly when it comes to hot-button social issues. Right-wing callers dial in hoping to score a few on-air points against the liberal. If one tack isn’t working, they quickly pivot and launch into another argument they hope will get more traction – the first was disposable. And then another, almost as if they are getting paid by the talking point. These exercises are not about the truth, or even about being right. This is about winning.

There is something else that enhances their flexibility: the unholy marriage of Christianity, libertarianism and Austrian economics. What the latter two have to do with Jesus is beyond me, but the order of argument depends on the particular bent of the person doing the arguing. It goes something like this:

When it is convenient to argue from Christian morality, they argue morality. If that isn’t scoring points, they change the subject and argue personal freedom. And if that isn’t getting traction, they switch to free-market economics. And if that isn’t working, it is back to morality, or else cry socialism. This is the rock-paper-scissors of right-wing rhetoric.

I got into an online debate with a tea party supporter over the proposed Arizona law allowing employers with moral objections to opt out of offering employee insurance plans that include contraception coverage. I asked, as an employer, how it is any of my business how employees spend the compensation they’ve earned and, in a contractual arrangement, I agreed to pay? Well, first it was about freedom, then it was about morality (and hair-splitting about whether employer or employee buys coverage with the employee’s earnings), then it was about how the government offering employer tax benefits distorts the free market.

For all the moral posturing, why is it that economics dominates right-wing debates about values?

As a businessman, I am also free today not to have any employees or to offer any benefits besides cash if my morality is that big an issue. Just because there is a tax advantage doesn’t mean the government is holding a gun to my head to take it. If I have moral qualms and will lose sleep over it, I am free to drop the health benefit altogether – and if I am a free market supplicant, let the free market have its ever-lovin’ undistorted way with me. But by my choices people will know which I value more, my morals or my money.

That sort of world exists, you know. The Amish eschew electricity and automobiles out of their sense of morality. They freely choose to limit interactions with the rest of society and with the government, and that’s just fine by them. And they freely accept the consequences for their lifestyle and their bottom line. They don’t need to spout off about their values on TV and talk radio because they are too busy living them and letting the “English” live theirs. They refuse to compromise their beliefs to improve their social status, or to gain political power, or to impose their views on others, or to build their portfolios and boost the bottom line. Because their beliefs are their bottom line.

So, you want a society as free as possible from government interference – a real one, not a fictional one? (And with less anarchy than Somalia?) Where families are stable, where everybody looks like you and shares your Christian faith, where peer pressure, not law, keeps people in line, and where the government pretty much stays out of your business? Well, there it is, not in some Randian fantasy, but in Lancaster County, PA and Holmes County, Ohio.

Go for it. Show us all what you really value.

And that’s my sermon.

(Cross-posted from Scrutiny Hooligans.)

Two items in the news underscore the situation. A special issue of Conscience  magazine questions whether the Obama administration’s [...]]]> One of the consequences of the creeping Religious Rightism in the Democratic Party has been the steady erosion of reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care for women, especially abortion care.  

Two items in the news underscore the situation. A special issue of Conscience  magazine questions whether the Obama administration’s policies can be considered prochoice.  And an article in the Los Angeles Times, outlining the current “torrent” of draconian antiabortion legislation being proposed, and sometimes enacted in the states.  The latter is, of course, but an indicator of the still-cresting wave of state level anti-abortion public policy work in the generation since the Casey decision of the Supreme Court, which allowed considerable, medically unnecessary, state regulation of access to abortion care.

Journalist Jodie Jacobson, writing in Conscience, reviews the highlights of Obama’s prochoice 2008 campaign stances and his record so far as president and concludes,

“The president has presided over the greatest erosion to women’s reproductive health and rights in the past 30 years, and a continuing degradation of our rights at the state level.”

None of this will surprise those who have been following Democratic Party’s dubious “faith outreach” schemes — which have sought to attract antiabortion Catholics and evangelicals,  while mostly ignoring, and marginalizing the prochoice religious community. In terms of policy, this has also led to what could be generously described as inattention to the steady decline in access to abortion services in most of the country.

Towards this end, we have seen a down playing of the so-called “culture wars” to the point of claiming, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the Religious Right is dead or dying, and that the culture wars themselves are over or just about.  This has been accompanied by calls by political consultants for eliding the phrase separation of church and state from the vocabulary of Democratic candidates for federal office because it is not in the Constitution; and even unsupported claims by some faith leaders and even candidate Obama that “secularists” are driving religious people from public life.  

All this is part of the context of the way the antiabortion term and elements of the agenda of “abortion reduction” have emerged in the Democratic Party.  In 2006, for example, a Party faith outreach consultant Eric Sapp, declared at an event sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:  

On abortion you are seeing a shift within the Democratic Party in the way they’re talking about the issue. Talking about abortion reduction is a very effective political step, but it also moves the discussion forward; it wasn’t just talk. In the House two different legislative packages were proposed that would have truly targeted many of the core causes of abortion. It would not completely end abortion, but it would do a whole lot better than we’re doing right now.

More recently, a staffer at the liberal Washington, DC think tank Faith in Public Life claimed that the Democratic Party platform and candidate Barack Obama in his 2008 Party convention speech specifically supported “abortion reduction,” when in fact, neither was the case. The candidate and the Party promised something much different.  

Nevertheless, it has come to pass that the ostensibly prochoice Democratic Party and its prochoice Democratic president has failed to lead on abortion, while seeking to find common ground with a movement that was not interested. This should surprise no one, since the very public, public policy agenda of the antiabortion movement has been to erode access to the procedure under the rubric of abortion reduction primarily via state laws and regulations, but obviously in tandem with aggressive street level protests; harassment of patients and staff; and all in the context of violence and threats of violence.

Melanie Zurek, executive director of the Abortion Access Project told me in 2009, that while there were many proposals in play at the time regarding federal health care reform, none of them included expanding access to abortion services, which are actually unavailable in most counties in the U.S.  I wrote that the common ground agenda being promoted by elements of the Democratic Party at the time

“… required turning a blind eye to the reality that access to abortion care in the U.S. is receding, and that their approach mainstreams a fundamental concept of anti-abortion strategy and related terminology. They did this by recasting contraception and sex education as if their primary purpose was to achieve the goal of reducing the number of abortions.”

Little has changed since then, except that it is now crystal clear that the antiabortion forces, (with a very few exceptions), never bought the idea that sexuality education and contraception were legitimate ways to reduce the need for abortion.  And that is one of the core problems with the common ground initiative.  There was little common ground to actually be found, as a quarter century of previous common ground discussions had shown.

Rev. Debra Haffner of the Religious Institute wrote at the Huffington Post in 2009,  

“Abortion reduction” is promoted by those who support restricting abortion access, through such measures as parental notification, waiting periods and mandatory sonogram laws, or by making it illegal outright. No true progressive would advocate any strategy to make abortion services more difficult to obtain. For progressives, reducing the need for abortion means comprehensive sexuality education, family planning and contraceptive services to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy. Yet conservatives insist on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and argue that many common means of contraception are abortifacients.

… I have fought for sexual justice my entire life. It is a progressive value I hold dear. So I say to my colleagues across the religious spectrum: Join me in supporting sexual justice, or stop calling yourself progressive.

Since then, the erosion of access has continued and the abortion reduction advocates have continued to call themselves progressive.

This week, The Los Angeles Times, reported on state level antiabortion legislation:

Few initiatives are aimed at expanding access to reproductive health services, the institute said.) Fifteen of the bills introduced this year have been enacted into law, and more than 120 others have been approved by at least one legislative chamber.

We are always monitoring a huge number of anti-choice laws,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges antiabortion laws. “But what we are seeing this year is some of the most extreme restrictions, and they are passing at a rather sharp clip.”

That is probably because of several factors, including the prominence of the abortion issue in last year’s health care debate, as well as gains by Republicans, both at the state and national level, in November’s election, advocates on both sides say.

For her part, Jodi Jacobson highlights Obama’s failure as president to lead on reproductive rights and details for example, how candidate Obama was against the Hyde Amendment before he embraced it as president — and even signed an executive order to underscore the banning of all federal funds from providing abortion care, as part of the deal to get his health care bill passed.  If this were not enough, Jacobson adds:  

“… his administration then went a step further.  In May of last year, abortion restrictions were applied to high risk insurance pools, the very sources of health insurance for women most likely to need coverage for abortion care due to chronic or terminal illness.

Rather than including contraception as part of the original package of preventive care required to be covered under health reform, the administration punted leaving this issue a panel that won’t deliver its decision until August.  This action effectively raises questions about whether or not contraception is preventive care, gives time to the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops to frame the debate in misleading terms and, finally, leaves the issue to be decided during the heat of the 2012 election campaign.”

Indeed, in recent months we have seen an escalating effort to prevent family planning grants and contracts at all levels of government from going to Planned Parenthood; even though  Planned Parenthood affiliates all are already barred from spending federal funds on abortion, and many affiliates do not even provide abortions.

This underscores something that often gets lost in the back and forth about politics and policy: This is not now, nor has it ever been only about abortion and contraception. The Religious Right is determined to degrade Planned Parenthood’s institutional capacity and abuse its excellent public image because it is the institutional symbol of women’s reproductive freedom.  The prevailing reduction narrative about abortion policy tends to obscure this while nothing at all is said, let alone done, about access.

Last year, Chip Berlet published an excellent essay on the state of the political realignment in the Party that has led to this situation. But let’s make no mistake, the adoption of elements of Religious Right thought in the Democratic Party is leading to elements of Religious Right outcomes.

[Crossposted from Talk to Action]

The total cost of the thirty ads was not revealed but the spokesperson of the organization is supposed to be gathering that [...]]]> After the unveiling of Life Always’ ad at 58th and State St. on Chicago’s south side Rev. Stephen Broden, a board member of the organization, and other speakers responded to questions.

The total cost of the thirty ads was not revealed but the spokesperson of the organization is supposed to be gathering that data. A Sun-Times reporter asked Rev. Broden about funding neighborhood groups or clinics themselves instead of spending the money on the billboards.

The video can be difficult to hear due to a lot of community opposition of the ads. They remained vocal throughout the press conference as well as the media’s question and answer session. While the organization does not need local neighborhood input prior to placing an advertisement, Washington Park community members felt they should have reached out to local women’s organizations.

When past billboards went up in Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New York the organization, Life Always, faced criticism of racism and sexism by targeting minority neighborhoods and women. Atlanta Journal Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker wrote, “It’s both sexist and racist to suggest that black women don’t have the intellectual and emotional firepower to make their own decisions.” The New York ad (covered here) brought charges of racial profiling by the anti-choice organization prior to it being pulled.

In a prepared statement Planned Parenthood of Illinois stated:

Planned Parenthood of Illinois provides care to more than 60,000 men, women, and teens each year. More than ninety percent of our services are preventive, and include: lifesaving cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, contraceptive consultations, and GYN exams. In 2010, we provided 34,770 STI tests, 161,678 family planning visits, 15,440 contraception consultations, 19,572 cervical cancer screenings, and 21,393 clinical breast exams. Sixty percent of our patients live at or below the federal poverty level.

We know that African-American women are disproportionately affected by the current health care system which involves multiple barriers to accessing quality, affordable care. This results in higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Life Always is waging much of its campaign against Planned Parenthood by calling it racist under the guise of founder Margaret Sanger’s eugenic beliefs more than 80 years ago (she died in 1966 respected by black civil rights leaders). Planned Parenthood has countlessly denounced her past comments and upholds her as a pioneer in the reproductive rights movement.

Rev. Broden claimed Life Always’ advertising methods were not racist because the speakers were black. If his reasoning was true then Planned Parenthood would not be racist because they have representatives and leaders who are people of color as well. Furthermore, he claimed it was not a race issue while a few seconds later he claimed it was one.

The topic of reproductive choice is always one fraught with emotions. Both sides of the debate argue passionately, as you can tell with the press conference (both sides). Regardless of one’s opinion there is no denying the money spent on those 30 ads would have been better spent on the neighborhoods they reside in.

Our discussions on politics and causes can last for hours if we let them. [...]]]> My partner and I love doing the usual things together – going to the movies, running, dinning out and whole host of things. Really too many to list out. We also share a deep and abiding faith in social justice.

Our discussions on politics and causes can last for hours if we let them. But we can also talk for hours about cupcakes, ice cream and more silly things. Over the last several months we make an effort to condense those discussions down into a podcast covering three topics or themes entitled A&E’s 1-2-3. Usually running between 5-7 minutes the topics range from women’s issues and current events to the premiere of a new television show or a favorite ice cream (we like mixing the serious and the not so much).

In our latest podcast we were completely serious because serious times call for serious discussions. The conservative movement is waging a political war on three separate fronts.

1. Women’s Rights – From trying to redefine rape to end funding for Title X’s family planning efforts, the anti-choice movement is rapidly trying to take basic rights away from half the country. Within our podcast we mostly talk about the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

I have written extensively on other attacks such as the billboard in SoHo equating abortion in the African American community as genocide. Or the demonization of Planned Parenthood as a drive-thru abortion facility when in reality only 3% of all it’s services fall into the category of a perfectly legal medical procedure.

The underlying desire for conservatives in this front is to ultimately to take away any aspect of reproductive choice (contraceptives or even STD & cervical cancer screenings) from women.

2. Public Access – They want to take away my Cookie Monster. Seriously, who wants to take away a childhood memory like Sesame Street? House and Senate Republicans have railed against runaway spending and in an attempt to rein it in they’ve taken an ax to anything dealing with public access.

Funds for PBS? Gone! NPR? Gone! National Endowment for the Arts? Gone! Americorps? Annihilated!

This assault is an attempt to do away with anything having to do with pushing our own educational boundaries. We can even throw in the massive cuts to Head Start and Pell Grants in terms of funding standard education. Instead of making common sense cuts to the Defense budget or closing tax loopholes or ending corporate welfare – they say to slash our access to public tools of education.

3. Working and Middle Class – We’ve all been paying attention to the struggle in Wisconsin. We know the possible affect it could have around the country. I personally believe that what happens in Madison certainly won’t stay there.

We know these fights for workers’ rights are beginning to happen all around the country. What most people are not paying attention to is the fact Republicans in the House have not offered up one honest job proposal. Instead they have tried to focus on the two issues mentioned above. They are doing nothing to help move the economy forward and their budget proposals would only make things worse.

A confidential new report prepared by Goldman Sachs for its clients says spending cuts passed by the House of Representatives last week would be a drag on the economy, cutting economic growth by about two percent of GDP.

“Under the House passed spending bill [which cut spending by $61 billion],” says the report, which was obtained by ABC News, “the drag on GDP growth from federal fiscal policy would increase by 1.5pp to 2pp in Q2 and Q3 compared with current law.”

Elizabeth and I mentioned in the podcast the idea of Republicans wanting a double dip recession in order to win the Presidency in 2012. I don’t think many in this community would disagree with that.

Extreme conservatives are waging a war. We need to be fighting tooth and nail.

Thanks for reading and listening to the podcast. Please check out my partner’s site if you get the chance.

The justifiable homicide concept burst into national consciousness in 1993. It was [...]]]> Now that the brouhaha over a proposed bill in the South Dakota legislature that would have redefined the murder of abortion providers as “justifiable homicide” is largely over, and the bill has been tabled, let’s consider the origins of the idea.

The justifiable homicide concept burst into national consciousness in 1993. It was contained in two “Defensive Action Statements” which were signed at various times by 33 people. The text of the first as authored by a well-known Gulf Coast antiabortion activist, Paul Hill in 1993 read:

“We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.”

The second, using similar language, was issued on behalf of Paul Hill who had murdered Dr. John Britton and his unarmed escort. Hill had previously also issued a 13 page manifesto about the need for “defensive war” and called for the formation of Christian militias to lead a revolution against the federal government. The Army of God in turn, is populated with people who adhere to similar ideas, many of whom see themselves as engaged in a long-term theocratic revolutionary struggle.

The idea was also introduced via a crude cartoon by far-right Catholic priest, David Trosch. The cartoon depicted a man holding a gun on a doctor performing an abortion and was titled: “justifiable homicide?”

Meanwhile, Operation Rescue activist Michael Hirsch a law student at Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School, had developed a legal theory of the justifiable homicide of abortion providers which was the core of his 1993 Regent University Law School thesis. It had been prepared for publication in the school’s law review, but all 500 copies of the review were suppressed prior to publication because Paul Hill’s assassination of Dr. Britton suddenly made the article a PR nightmare. Hirsch has argued that the murder of Dr. David Gunn was “consistent with Biblical Truth” and under Florida law, justifiable if one “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the immediate death or great bodily harm to himself or another.” Hirsch wrote that the “presuppositions” he brings to any discussion “come from the Bible… it is impossible to fully consider the hypothetical defense of Michael Griffin without Scriptural support for the argument.”

Hirsch later sought to test his theory in an appeal of Hill’s murder conviction, but his theory was rejected by the courts, and Hill was executed by the state of Florida for his crimes.

The notion has evolved over time. In the 1980s, attorneys seeking to defend people accused of arson against abortion facilities, unsuccessfully sought to offer the “necessity defense.” In theological circles, the idea of vigilante action on behalf of what was thought to be “God’s laws” was variously called “Defensive action” and “interposition.” Whether approached via the law or via theology, the idea was to justify criminal acts against abortion providers on behalf of the unborn.

But over time the notion of justifiable homicide has stuck, although it has no legal basis whatsoever. The Army of God uses the term to justify the assassination of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder, for example. Roeder, although he had discussed justifiable homicide in 1993 with Army of God leader Michael Bray, sought to use the necessity defense in court, but the judge denied this approach was applicable.

No court in the country to my knowledge has allowed any defense in which the crime is acknowledged but excused via a necessity defense or the argument that murder of an abortion provider constitutes justifiable homicide. That is why it would have been significant if the South Dakota legislators pushing the idea had prevailed in passing the bill. It would probably have been struck down by the courts, but it would have once again raised into national debate about whether the entire notion that the assassination of abortion providers was somehow moral and legal.

In 1993 the idea that even a few people thought that the murder of a doctor was justified was shocking. But as woolly-headed as it may seem to some, the idea lives on.

(For a more detailed discussion of the origins of the theory of the murder of abortion providers as justifiable homicide see my book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, Common Courage Press, 1997.)