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.