Clergy Support for Unplanned Pregnancy?

July 2, 2009

I thought that the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice would have a list of clergy or other trained individuals willing to offer support to women and/or families facing an unplanned pregnancy, but I couldn’t find a list. Does such a thing exist anywhere? Or do families who face an unplanned pregnancy but have no church home just have to pick a random church and ask for support/advice?

Update: The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice lists local affiliates here and it seems like families or women could contact those people, but they are rather limited, so I am still happy for any other resources that people know of.

Update II: So, for instance in Ohio, you can call an all-options clergy counseling hotline. This looks super helpful. I wonder if they are available in all states? This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Perhaps I will try to compile a list of these resources for all states, so if you know of other such resources, this is what I am looking for.


The Hardest Choice

June 8, 2009

The article below is a beautiful and heart-breaking piece about abortion past the first trimester. It is so difficult for me to understand how people cannot hear stories like this.

The Hardest Hardest Choice: Why I Had a Second-Term Abortion.


Writing About Dr. George Tiller

June 2, 2009

I am sad about the doctor who was killed…angry about the lack of access that women have to abortions… about the people who try to reduce access to abortion and birth control but don’t adopt all the unwanted children out there… about conservative zealots who promote hate but take no responsibility for the results of their irresponsible and polarizing rhetoric. At the same time, I always hate to make a big fuss about *one big happening* that is sad and tragic and terrible since there are such happenings every day that go unnoticed by us because they are routine. So I almost didn’t write this post, but then I did because I’m trying to let myself write more without it having to be perfect and worked out.

I am sad and angry about the loss of Dr. George Tiller, the loss of the important services he provides, the people who work to limit women’s control over their own lives and bodies, the women who feel shame about abortion, the children who are born unwanted… and all of the suffering and hurt and injustice that goes unnoticed and unmourned each day.

May our lives be blessings on those who need it – families, doctors, religious people who feel strongly, who act wrongly. May we be peace where it is needed. Hope where there is none. Love – real love, hard love, challenging love – in the places where it is hardest to do that.


The Rick Warren Bru-ha-ha

December 20, 2008

I am of two minds on the Rick Warren matter.

My first reaction is to say, “Look, I don’t like the guy either. I don’t agree with his theology. I don’t agree with his politics. But it isn’t like he was chosen to be the minister-in-chief or something. He is giving an invocation. I know it has a lot of symbolic meaning, but it doesn’t have any practical consequences in and of itself. It is a gesture of the president elect to say, ‘I am not a president only to progressives or to liberals, but a president to the whole country.’ And, there are big parts of the country that can identify with Rev. Rick Warren. And, as conservative evangelical pastors go, he is one of the less offensive ones who has at least made some overtures toward changing the tone of the rhetoric. My hope is that it is a gesture that will soften the hearts of those who would tend to be more opposed to Obama and his policies. It will not solve many problems, but it is a gesture of unity, which people are always talking about. You know, one country, working out our differences and that sort of thing. By saying all of this, I don’t mean to say that I don’t understand why people don’t like it. Heck, I don’t like it either. But I see it as a strategic move that may help in the long run with things that matter more than who gives the invocation at the inauguration.” (It is of course another matter whether there should be invocations and benedictions at inaugurations anyway.)

That said, it occurred to me how often discrimination against women or the GLBTQ community can often be chalked up to theology, while few people will stand for discrimination against ethnic minorities chalked up to theology. I try to imagine if someone gave the invocation that said that they still supported slavery based on theology. Or that women should obey thier husbands based on theology (heck, Warren may agree with the second of those statements). What would it mean to have someone give the invocation as a gesture of unity and goodwill who was known to support legalized discrimination against women – that they should get paid less, that rape should be less of a crime, that they should not have inheritance rights? Hmm. No matter how symbolic or strategic that would be, I would be feeling really unhappy about this. So then I started rethinking what I said above.

And now I just don’t know. The thing is, so many of these difficult issues are totally intrackable. “We” dig in our heals. “They” dig in their heels. We write on our blogs about why we are right. We affirm each other at our churches about why we are right. We are smug. We know whose side God is on. And where does this get us? What is the way forward toward better understanding each other, finding common ground to work on together, even, dare I say it, finding areas where compromise makes sense. I am not talking about any particular issue, but rather all of these very intense social and political issues that are so close to our hearts – all of our hearts – and where it seems so difficult to move forward.

I’m guessing having Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration isn’t the answer. But I wish we could come up with a better one that just insisting on how right and just we are and getting offended and indignant. Not that I am somehow immune to this. I do it to. But there must be a better way…


Ms. Magazine Feature: We Had Abortions

October 4, 2006

Ms. Magazine‘s fall issue that will be released next week has a cover storied titled “We Had Abortions.” Thousands of women nationwide have signed it. You can sign it here, read the petition here, and I was very glad to see that there was an option that says “I have not had an abortion but I stand with my sisters in support of safe, legal and accessible abortion and birth control” that you can sign if you have not had an abortion but want to stand in solidarity with women who have.

This is so important because it sends the message “Do not be ashamed. We stand together affirming our right to control our own bodies and our own lives.” Even many who support the right of a women to choose to have a legal, safe abortion tend to follow it up with such statements as “if there is no other option” or “of course, I, personally, would never be able to do such thing” as if having an abortion is something “other” women do who obviously made bad choices or who were in absolutely desperate situations but that “we” would never do unless our lives depended on it.

It feels like, to me, those who do not support the right of a woman or a couple to choose a safe, legal abortion have succeeded in much of what they aim for. They have made it very difficult to end a pregnancy – intimidating doctors, clinic workers, women and via legislative restrictions – and have managed to stigmatize the ending of a pregnancy, to promote it as something to be ashamed of. While I respect the preference of women to keep parts of their lives to themselves, I think often it goes beyond simple preference for privacy and is about being shamed into silence. I like Ms.’s campaign because it says “This is not something we have to be ashamed of. This is a basic right. It has been a part of women’s lived experience for thousands of years. It is not immoral, a crime, or shameful.”

I think for many women, abortion is a very difficult decision and I respect the range of feelings and thoughts that women have about how they have, or would handle the situation (although I think often we do not know how we would handle the situation until we actually face it). That said, I wish there was a way to bring a little perspective to the trauma that so many women feel with abortions, much of which I feel is a shame and trauma the movement against safe and legal abortions has helped to promote. They want us to feel horrible about getting an abortion. And they have done a good job of that. But I don’t think it is something that one should have to feel terrible about. Not that it is something that women should feel somehow happy about – just as one does not feel happy about using emergency contraception or birth control. I don’t mean to imply that abortion is the same as these things, but just that controlling one’s reproduction is part of life and not a shameful or morally problematic endeavor. I think legitimate questions exist as to when a fetus becomes a person and that all are free to make individual decisions about what they think about that and how they act related to that. I feel as though a reasonable chance of viability is when things get ethically more difficult. Prior to that, however, I want to encourage women to feel like this is a less dramatic issue that it has been made to be – respecting that we all must travel our paths in our own way, but also being aware that those who oppose the right to safe and legal abortion have been able to profoundly influence the rhetoric and tone of the ethical and moral implications of a first-trimester/early-second-trimester abortion.

I would like to craft this response more carefully but I have to prepare for a presentation on Plato for tomorrow.


Anti-Abortion Proselytizing on the Streets of Cambridge

July 4, 2006

Well. Today I was helping my friend move out of her Harvard Square apartment and as I’m parking the moving truck on the street in front of the Catholic Church a woman asks me, as I am getting into the truck after loading a few things, if she could ask me a favor. Of course, I think she needs directions, or help or something, well, normal that you ask people for on the street. Instead she asks me if I would pray for an end to abortion in Boston. Obviously this is not a favor, but a proselytization tactic I know from my days of (peripheral) involvement with Campus Crusade (for Christ). Anyway, I told her, “Actually, I am pro-choice” and her response is “Oh, well I hope you’ll change your way of thinking because God loves life and God loves you.” I do not deal well with face to face conflict or disagreement with strangers, so I was happy that I was able to say “Actually, I’m pro-choice” instead of “Sure, no problem” which would have been my pacifist gut instinct. Of course, since reproductive justice is something near and dear to my heart, as are conservative Christians that I believe very often are very well meaning, I thought about this for a while after it happened.

My gut reaction would be to be nasty to her and tell her that if she was so concerned with life, she might want to quit spending her time talking to random people on the streets and instead start adopting all the children all over the world and country that need loving homes or providing comprehensive sex education to all the kids who are getting wrong information in their churches. Or maybe she could talk to her church and ask them to make more of a fuss over poverty or the AIDS epidemic, rather than spending all their time and energy fussing over gay marriage and deferring blame related to the widespread child abuse by priests. In my gut, I really have such a hard time understanding how people can be so into “life” while in the womb and not really give much of a damn what happens afterward or, at least if they do give a damn, that sure isn’t where they put their energies. Instead they spend time asking random people on the streets of Cambridge to pray.

However, since I think nastiness and lack of empathy is typically neither helpful nor kind, I would have never said this. Even though I wouldn’t have had time to engage her in depth on the street, this brings me to a very important question. What do you say to people like this women in order to gently nudge their energies in more productive directions? I really feel a calling to reach out to conservative people of faith in this country and I’m always interested in ways to speak to them in a loving, understanding way, while at the same time challenging them to consider the complexity and multivalent possibilities for conceiving of and interacting with the divine. One part of me wants to think that rational explanation might help. More birth control = fewer unwanted pregnancies. Condoms in Africa = Less AIDS = Less death. However, as many of you know, this does not quite work in the Catholic world (to a large extent) or in many Christian fundamentalist contexts.

Helping people to make connections that might not otherwise be made can make a difference. Maybe it doesn’t occur to some anti-abortion activists that there are children who are already born that need care and love and people to protect their life. But, I suspect, for many this sort of logic does not work. What about the people that read the Catholic document Humanae Vitae and think that this is just a totally reasonable and true document. What about those who really think that by encouraging condom use in Africa this somehow interferes with the sanctity of marriage and conjugal relations, even though it results in the deaths of millions of women whose husbands are unfaithful and infect them with AIDS. How do we have productive conversations with true-believers whose belief is not based in reason or logic (of course, reason and logic as I see it)? Even though I think that result of anti-choice activisim devalues women as agents/subjects of the world, limits their freedom, and results in oppressive and hurtful, and sometimes deadly policies and cultural attitudes, I don’t think that this is how people like the woman on the street conceive of it. I think she really does think she is saving babies. And that a woman’s role is fundamentally different than a man’s role in the world. How do we productively engage people at this level? Campus Crusade for Christ has amazingly effective evangelization programs – a systematic approach to trying to meet people where they are at and invite them into a relationship with Jesus, often which is very fulfilling, meaningful, and well-intentioned. Liberals, lovers of freedom and equality too need to find a way to engage conservatives in loving, empathetic way, inviting them into conversation about theological and social issues. Dismissing them as crazy or weird or as part of some conspiracy to take over the world for evil purposes might feel cathartic sometimes, but will get us no where in better securing the rights and freedoms and love and justice that so many of us desire for marginalized people, or moving toward a culture of reproductive justice. Now I just have to figure out how to do this in a meaningful way – on the streets when people come up to me, in churches that are conservative, with people I meet, with the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robinsons of the world. And with our neighbors – our brothers and sisters – who have great intentions to love, to do good in the eyes of God, even if it is hard for many of us to imagine that the conservative right Christians of our country are simply people doing the best they can to make sense of the world and be right with God. Perhaps I am being overly generous, but I look forward to ways to meet intolerance with love, unkindness with empathy, judgmentalness with understanding, hurt with healing. May it be so. Oh, please may we find a way to do this. Please please please please. For the sake of all humanity – all of us who ache, all of us who are trying to struggle and stumble along to make a sense of this complex world and make it a better place for everyone. May God open our ears and our hearts, give us the inner strength to reach out beyond our comfort zones, to see ourselves in others, to listen, to struggle together in covenent.


Contraception Use Down, Abortion Rate Declines Less

May 5, 2006

The New York Times reports today in the article “Use of Contraception Drops, Slowing Decline of Abortion Rate” that fewer women (or couples) who do not want to get pregnant are using contraception, thus leading to more unintended pregnancies and a slowing of the trend of declining abortion rates.

According to the article,

the researchers blamed reductions in federally and state-financed family planning programs for declining contraceptive use. They called for public and private insurance to cover contraceptives, and for over-the-counter access to the so-called morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours after sex.Of three million pregnancies in the United States each year, half are unintended, according to Guttmacher, and half of those are carried to term. About 14,000 women who carry the pregnancies put the children up for adoption, and 1.3 million have abortions.

What I really cannot wrap my head around is why people who think abortion is killing a baby would not be the biggest most vocal advocates of contraception and the morning-after pill. I mean, even if you incorrectly claim that the morning-after pill causes abortion, is it not preferable to have an “abortion” of a fertilized egg that is about two cells big, rather than after the fertilized egg is implanted and starts becoming more “baby”-like? Certainly, the must make a difference between a fertilized egg and a fetus as 12 weeks?

And, I don’t think that it is a huge stretch to imagine that all this abstinence-only education that fails to teach students about contraception might be contributing to the decline in the use of contraception and the slowing of the abortion rate decline.

I think that Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist (who I have mixed feelings about), contributes some interesting thoughts to what is going on here:

Straight Rights Update: Earlier this month, Republicans in South Dakota successfully banned abortion in that state. Last week, the GOP-controlled state house of representatives in Missouri voted to ban state-funded family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control. “If you hand out contraception to single women,” one Republican state rep told the Kansas City Star, “we’re saying promiscuity is okay.” On the federal level, Republicans are blocking the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception and keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year­from being made available.The GOP’s message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You’re going to have those babies, ladies, and you’re going to make those child-support payments, gentlemen. And if you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that’s too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.

What’s it going to take to get a straight-rights movement off the ground? The GOP in Kansas is seeking to criminalize hetero heavy petting, for God’s sake! Wake up and smell the freaking Holy War, breeders! The religious right hates heterosexuality just as much as it hates homosexuality. Fight back!

Although I would not have put it quite like, the point is that Republicans and various other conservative groups/people seem to not just be against premarital sex, but sex in general. And who does this disproportionately effect, my friends? Women.

I wish I had some sort of good point to all of this rather than just lamenting how sad and depressing it is. I know that many of us feel a very heavy burden to speak up about so many things – the environment, the war, animal rights, GLBTQ rights, freedom of conscience, and so on. I know we cannot do it all. But do put this on your radar screen, at the least, and if nothing else, pray. Or meditate. Or hope. Or whatever you can do in your quiet time (or if you happen to have magical powers, all the better…). If you can manage to write a letter to your congressperson or speak up in a kind, compassionate, but firm way at your town meeting, or school board meeting, or this weekend’s dinner party, small steps are better than no steps. The tragic thing is that the work of the religious right in making contraception, the morning-after pill, and abortion more difficult to obtain or to learn about results in so much harm to women, families, and children. Planned Parenthood’s motto about “every child wanted, every child loved” is so powerful to me. I am positive that if all those anti-sex, anti-abortion, anti-contraception people truly cared about children they would be pushing for policies that cared for children once they are born – available and affordable health care, quality preschool and K-12 education, adequate and affordable day care, and policies that allowed their parents to adequately care for children such as required living wages, universal health care coverage, and so on.

I truly find it hardly comprehensible. And just very depressing. What I try to remain focused on (and did not do a good job here) is thinking of ways to compassionately and lovingly build bridges of understanding and common ground with those with whom I disagree so strongly with. As I’ve read before, we cannot blog (or sermon, for that matter) our way to revolution. What will it take to change things? Liberals are great at lamenting the ills of the right, but after we have lamented for a while, we must actually do something.

W. (my partner) works for a project on developing a progressive strategy. That is, an actual strategy to change something rather than the big liberal woe-is-us pow wows that we often take part in (myself included). His blog is here. No solutions yet, but I’m glad that at least some people are thinking about how we might actually change some of the horrors we see.

On that cheerful note, enjoy the sunny weather! In solidarity, Elizabeth


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers