Apparently only two pro-choice people on the Faith-Based Council.

[madfloridian]

The full 25 have been chosen now, and The American Prospect reports that only two of them are pro-choice.

Faith-based fail

Obama has made his final appointments to his controversial council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In the FundamentaList today, Sarah Posner summarizes what it means for reproductive rights:

"With his council appointments now complete, Obama has given far more seats on his council to religious leaders who are anti-choice than to ones who are openly pro-choice, even though the majority of Americans favor legal abortion. There are only two pro-choicers, and they're both
Jewish. Reproductive-health advocates suggested several pro-choice Christians to the White House as worthy additions to the council. By not giving them seats, though, the administration shows that it is too afraid to challenge anti-choice evangelicals by putting their pro-choice brothers and sisters at the same table."

The author also points out that some of them wrote a letter asking to continue the terrible policy by Bush:

Frances Kissling also points out that the appointments aren't just predominantly anti-choice -- they're also mostly men. Five of the council members recently signed on to a letter asking Obama not to overturn the Bush administration's HHS policy allowing health care providers to deny services (such as contraception) based on their personal beliefs.

More from the FundamentaList blog quoted above:

To promote the alleged "common ground" on "abortion reduction," Joshua DuBois, the director of President Barack Obama's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFBNP), gave a rare interview to Newsweek last week. In it, he embraced the Come Let Us Reason Together mythology that the end of the "culture wars" is nigh, if only those old battle axes on the left and right would lay down their arms. DuBois maintained, "There's a culture-war industry on both sides . . . What's helpful to the president and to us is a lot of people are weary of that. People are looking for ways out."

With this cringe-worthy denigration of reproductive health advocates as just as extreme as abortion clinic harassers, DuBois signals a future of mealy-mouthed Democrats who are pro-choice in their hearts, though timid when it comes to campaign rhetoric and policy.

Obama, so far, has not exhibited cowardice on setting policy. But he is accommodating the "common grounders" by giving them priority seating on his OFBNP advisory council, and telling them they will help shape policy on "reducing the need for abortion." That's the administration's favored phrase over the clinical "abortion reduction," which sounds like an Orwellian government program.

With his Council appointments now complete, Obama has given far more seats on his Council to religious leaders who are anti-choice than to ones who are openly pro-choice, even though the majority of Americans favor legal abortion. There are only two pro-choicers, and they're both Jewish.

Here are some links to the White House website, illustrating how vital this Faith-Based council will be in setting policy.

Obama Announces White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will focus on four key priorities, to be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and each of the eleven agency offices for faith-based and neighborhood partnerships:

The Office’s top priority will be making community groups an integral part of our economic recovery and poverty a burden fewer have to bear when recovery is complete.

It will be one voice among several in the administration that will look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.

The Office will strive to support fathers who stand by their families, which involves working to get young men off the streets and into well-paying jobs, and encouraging responsible fatherhood.

Finally, beyond American shores this Office will work with the National Security Council to foster interfaith dialogue with leaders and scholars around the world.

The words of the White House website express that the right to reproductive choice should remain.

The Women's Agenda

Reproductive Choice

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

I still find it hard to believe these views on choice will prevail. After all, in 2007 our Democratic congress voted to INCREASE the funding for abstinence only training in schools...though it had already been proved a failure.

Democrats Increase Funding for Discredited Abstinence-Only Policy

"The Democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education (LHHS) Sub-Committee set science and commonsense aside by increasing the funding for discredited abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Despite a congressionally mandated report that found these programs do not work to help teens delay sexual initiation, House leadership allocated $141 million (an increase of $27.8 million) to continue feeding America's young people misinformation.

The author of the post at The American Prospect had more to say at the end of the article.

He's stacking the council with anti-choice men (and failing to challenge screwed-up Bush-era policies) as a political gesture, but he isn't actually appeasing any right-wingers. So why bother? I know there are faith leaders out there who are serious about providing services to those in need, and who aren't anti-woman or anti-gay -- why didn't Obama make them the majority of his appointments? If he wanted to make a point about maintaining a dialogue with those he disagrees with, he still could have appointed one or two fundamentalists. But the conservative-dominated council as it stands now is pretty damn annoying, to say the least.

Only two on the Faith-Based Council of 25 who support the rights of women to make their own health care choices.

It was either an oversight or it was deliberate. Either way is bad for women.

[polichick]

1. The thing I like least about the president is his (imo unhealthy) need to placate his enemies...

...while slapping those who elected him ~ this looks like another example of that tendency.

[QC]

15. Bill Clinton was the same way. It was better to be his enemy than his ally.

I think Obama might be even worse about it than Clinton was.

[polichick]

17. Could it come from some deep-seated desire to be accepted by EVERYONE??

Sure doesn't seem healthy. It's depressing to see him ridicule young supporters who long for the end of hypocrisy with regard to marijuana/alcohol laws, and then watch him kiss up to the very people who pray for his failure.

[Two Americas]

21. what about us?

There seems to be no "deep-seated desire to be accepted" by most of us - by Labor, by teachers, by anti-war activists, by GLBTQ people.

[polichick]

33. Maybe he thinks we've all accepted him already - and he assumes...

...we always will. Reminds me of people in school who betray their friends in order to be accepted by the bullies and mean girls. Sad.

[Marie26]

55. I dunno

Who does Obama respect? I've seen him show respect for Rev. Wright, for Rick Warren, for Larry Summers. But the liberal/progressive gets sort of veiled barbs directed at Wellstone, Dean, DeFazio, the online liberal movement. It's almost like he considers that wing to be an annoyance more than a friend. To continue the high school analogy, the progressives are the annoying dorks that are making him look bad to the cool crowd.

[QC]

30. With Clinton it seemed like some deep psychological need, something

well beyond mere politics. With Obama, who knows.

[polichick]

36. Yeah, and that need for acceptance can be dangerous...

...often gets people in trouble eventually.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. If is from a deep-seated desire to get reelected

[Two Americas]

20. if they are

If they actually are his enemies.

[Marie26]

54. My theory

is that Obama is really quite conservative at heart. He actually believes in this faith-based stuff & maybe feels much more affinity for the Rick Warren types than the Howard Dean types.

[Lars39]

2. This is not acceptable.

Women deserve better representation than this.

[ecstatic]

3. Looks like Roe V. Wade is in jeopardy... the 23 anti-choice people will overwhelm Obama

and before we know it, President Obama will outlaw abortion in all 50 states.

Series!1

[polichick]

4. Typical apologist drivel.

[Richard Steele]

53. What are you, HIGH?

Or did you just forget the 'SARCASM' smiley there?

[rvablue]

5. So what? Who cares?

I have 100% faith that President Obama will not appoint any justices (when and if the opportunity arises) to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

I also 100% believe that he has not and will not appoint any anti-choice people to positions of power inside the government who deal with regulation or policy decisions.

So, noboby is going to be in danger of losing their rights on this issue while President Obama is in office.

Who cares if he has some of these fools on some council? It's all just part of him living up to his promise that he would listen to all sides.

And I don't think he's "accomodating" any one when he said: they will help shape policy on "reducing the need for abortion."

Would I have like to see a lot more pro-choice voices on the council? Sure. Does it scare me that they will accomplish something beyond what the President will allow? No.


Just to be clear: I am ardently pro-choice.

[madfloridian]

6. I care.

Ask yourself why there would be a mostly anti-choice Faith-based council.

I care.

[BlueJazz]

10. Same Here...I care and I sometimes wonder (lately) : WHY did I vote for Obama??

I'm not sorry I did ...but..Stories like this and facts like "2 out of 25" are eating away my..Ahh.. Enthusiasm.

[polichick]

12. I care too - there's no excuse for kissing up to the right while...

...slapping supporters in the face. There's been too much of that already.

[BlueJazz]

18. Right...You know, He....or his Advisor's seem to forget that 30 percent of the population...

...are NOT going to ever like Obama, no matter what he does.
Lately, he seems to be eroding his popularity with the other 70 percent.

:banghead: :)

[dflprincess]

45. And I wonder how many of the 23 anti-choice members

are also anti-contraception.

[Zhade]

24. Reasonable people who can actually count care.

He's allowed those who DON'T advocate womb enslavement for women a whopping EIGHT PERCENT of the voices heard.

That means NINETY-TWO percent of the opinions on this already-questionable council will be anti-freedom. Anti-women. Anti-choice.

How is 8% versus 92% listening to all sides?

[biopowertoday]

46. I do not accept anyone 100%.

[DURHAM D]

7. Yep - and they have problems with us queers as well. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

8. How many should there fucking be? Gawd - of all the poutrage, this might be the stupidest.

[polichick]

13. Well, if it's going to reflect the values of the voting public - more than half.

[Zhade]

26. See post #24.

NT!

[dsc]

9. I am by no means a defender of Obama on this score

but I think the Prospect needs to be clearer here. I don't think they are right but since they don't name who the pro choicers are or show any evidence of the non pro choicers, I can't be sure. I think both Knox and Watkins, neither Jewish, are pro choice.

[madfloridian]

14. I feel quite sure they will be corrected if they are wrong.

And they will respond well.

[dsc]

19. turns out one of their own links shows me to be at least half right

The National Council of Jewish Women’s president Nancy Ratzen, a committed advocate of women’s rights and reproductive choice assumes a heavy burden on the Council. She is joined by two other women who represent religious institutions that are prochoice: Sharon Watkins of the Disciples of Christ and Peg Chemberlin, a Moravian clergywoman. Bishop Vashti MacKenzie, the other religious woman representative is a member of the African Methodist Episcopal church, which is opposed to abortion rights—although the Bishop has not been outspoken on this issue and is a supporter of women’s leadership. Of the men who represent religious institutions only Rabbi David Saperstein and Rev. Harry Knox are known to support women’s rights and sexual and reproductive freedom.

end of quote

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/politics/1316/%E2%80%9Cjunk_religion%E2%80%9D%3A_white_house_fills_remaining_faith-based_slots_/

It really was fairly sloppy reporting frankly I do think Obama has an under representation of both women and liberals on this council but we should stick to the truth. According to their own link they are wrong on both the number of pro choicers and the religion of them.

[madfloridian]

25. One possibility...perhaps they did not include supporters of abortion reduction.

"He also expressed interest in whether the council would continue the practice of using abstinence-only education as a criterion for receiving federal funds.

“I hope the president and the council will stay consistent with their desire to reduce the need for abortion," Knox said, "and, of course, that includes promoting comprehensive sex education that is age-appropriate, and it means access to all health services for all women at all times, and it means access to contraception.”

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid77828.asp

Many of the groups are merely silent on the matter.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm

The Moravians I know are not rabidly anti-choice, but they are not pro-choice either.

[dsc]

28. Isn't what Knox says exactly and precisely what planned parenthood says?

Seriously, I would be willing to bet I could find the exact, precise, same, word for word quote from Planned Parenthood, or are they anti choice too?

[madfloridian]

31. Everyone is pro-choice.

:shrug:

The goal is abortion reduction, and the terms will be set by those in control.

You and I have always differed on womens' rights and contraception, so I will back off.

[dsc]

35. words have meaning, even when typed by you

The fact is the link that the Prospect itself used to justify their article called the man pro choice. The only quote you found was one that could literally be found on the Planned Parenthood website. The fact I am pro life is irrelevent to this arguement. I didn't write either article, nor did I edit the quotes. The fact is the article was flat out wrong, that isn't your fault, of course, but it is wrong.

[Political Tiger]

11. Truth is, this faith-based stuff is not as scary as it sounds.

This is not George W Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, but Barack Obama's! While I am not in favor of this faith-based thing, I am glad that it will be handled totally differently than when Bush was at the helm. As liberals, we are naturally suspicious of religion, because we understand the importance of Separation of Church and State, and because the right has used religion as a weapon against people and to further their agenda of hate.

But now we have a president who understands how divisive religion can be, and a president who appreciates the concept of Separation of Church and State. I see no indication to fear that President Obama will use his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to promote a right-wing theological state, but instead as a partner to promote good works in our communities.

Obama's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships already is departing from the Bush model, said Judy Vredenburgh, departing president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.

....

At a Washington meeting early last week that included the council, the Rev. Josh DuBois, the federal office's new executive director, said Obama was "much more concerned with outcomes for families and children in poverty" than in the funding process, according to Vredenburgh.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20090412_Faith-based_fresh_start.html?viewAll=y

But perhaps the loudest message the White House sent about religion this week took place without the President in attendance. Over the course of two days, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships gathered more than 60 religious leaders (and a handful of secular non-profits) at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for the first in what director Joshua Dubois says will be a series of briefings. The White House also released the complete list of members of the advisory council of religious and secular leaders who will provide Obama with advice and feedback. (View a 2 minute bio of Joshua DuBois.)

Unlike the faith-based office itself, which was created by President Bush, the advisory council is a newly established body that has never existed in previous administrations. Members each serve one-year terms, and they come from a wide range of religious traditions, including Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, mainline Protestant, and Evangelical communities. The group includes a mix of theological liberals, civil rights leaders, conservative Evangelicals and even a few vocal critics of the Democratic Party's approach to social issues.

...

While the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has been around for eight years, the Obama White House is very keen to stress that their version of the office will have an entirely different mission. Whereas Bush established the office to "level the playing field" for faith-based service organizations that he argued were unable to compete for federal grants, Obama intends to use his faith office more for policy matters. It operates under the Domestic Policy Council and is charged with focusing on four issues: domestic poverty, responsible fatherhood, reducing the need for abortion and preventing unintended pregnancy, and interreligious dialogue and cooperation.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1890257,00.html

Joshua DuBois, executive director of the office, said the goal of the Bush administration’s faith-based office to “level the playing field” for faith-based organizations when bidding for government grants was important, but that the new president’s goal was to utilize the knowledge and expertise of religious and community organizations to achieve particular policy goals. Those priorities include addressing domestic poverty and contributing to the economic recovery, promoting responsible fatherhood, reducing unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion, and enhancing interreligious dialogue and cooperation. He also emphasized that the administration wanted a “policy-based partnership,” and that the office does not have a political or advocacy-based agenda.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/obama_faith-based_office_has_specific_goals_20090408/

"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." -President Barack Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/obama-us-not-a-christian_n_183772.html

" need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland…It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religion, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith…" -Barack Obama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/UTAHSECULARVOTER/gGBqbX

After eight years of worrying that meetings between religious and political leaders would lead to a theocratic state, liberals should be pleased that this first gathering was inclusive, open to the press, and focused on issues like poverty. And conservatives who predicted that the White House would be closed to anyone to the right of Jeremiah Wright should welcome the fact that doors are open to them as well. Faith and politics nearly always make for a messy combination. But openness and inclusion can keep them from becoming dangerous and scary as well.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1890257,00.html

[madfloridian]

51. The large majority on the council are anti-choice for women

and that sounds pretty dangerous to me. But of course it is only dangerous for women whose rights are going to be "reduced."

Men don't have to worry at all about it.

Of course it is dangerous to so combine religion and government.

[quiller4]

58. It might be scary if true but it isn't true. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

16. Of all the wasteful government programs.

Why is the federal government in the business of "faith"???

[bigwillq]

22. I am not a fan of the Faith Council at all.

:mad:

[Zhade]

23. Obama is becoming a huge disappointment.

NT!

[marybourg]

34. Not to me. nt.

[Zhade]

39. Well, no one ever accused you of being a forward-thinker.

NT!

[marybourg]

42. Actually I don't think anyone ever accused me of anything. nt

[readmoreoften]

44. She actually just accused you of being a backward thinker.

But you didn't pick up on it.

[marybourg]

50. Are you a long distance mind reader? nt.

[jwirr]

27. No Lutherans, no Methodists, no Congregational, no Presbyterians.

Where are these liberal church groups? I know that they have their conservatives but they also have some very traditional liberal branches.

[QC]

29. Obama seems totally unaware of the existence of Christians

who are not homophobic Prosperity Gospel con artists who meet in stadiums.

[polichick]

37. My liberal Christian mother has expressed this concern...

I'm starting to think the President is really confused when it comes to religion.

[QC]

48. He seems to think that he can win over the Prosperity Gospel/homophobia crowd.

I don't get it, personally, as these are the very same people who think he is a 'Muslin' sleeper agent.

Bill Clinton used to knock his friends down into the dirt in his rush to embrace people who hated him, and I am having flashbacks to that ugly spectacle lately.

[polichick]

40. That's a great question - maybe he figures they're already supporters...

...he doesn't have to bother with them.

My mother is a liberal Christian (Lutheran) who was as upset as I was when the President ridiculed young supporters who want him to address our archaic marijuana laws ~ what's his problem when it comes to supporting those who supported him??

[cali]

32. I find your concern that Obama will undermine choice laughable

And I don't buy that only 2 people on the Faith Council are pro-choice. As stated in your OP, only 5 people on the council have signed on to ask Obama not to overturn the bush policy on health providers' 'conscience' rule. That means 20 people on the council have expressed no problem with it.

Obama is strong on pro-choice and this is just fretful silliness. These folks are making a claim without evidence- no names, no statements, zippo.

[madfloridian]

38. Then you need to correct them.

I disagree with you. I think that this administration might use the abortion reduction to allow too many other voices in the door.

We don't need faith-based government.

[madfloridian]

41. Good article on the tactic of "abortion reduction" to pander to religious right.

The methods used to achieve the goal that should rightfully be between women and their doctors...could mean serious consequences for women. It sounds good to say the words, but then follows the question of who gets to decide how to do the reduction. Doesn't sound like those who really believe it is a woman's choice have much say in it.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/humanrights/1290/grasping_at_straws%3A_the_problem_with_common_ground_on_abortion/

"In 2004, a Democratic strategy shop, The Third Way, developed a new tactic for Democrats running in conservative “pro-life” districts. In a message memo called “Winning the Abortion Grays,” they suggested that candidates say “I will work to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America while protecting personal liberties.” The goal was tactical, not principled. It was not about preventing abortion; it was about getting Democrats elected.

Around the same time, pro-peace, anti-poverty, social justice Catholics and evangelicals wanted to challenge the religious right and elect progressives. They, too, wanted the abortion issue to go away. It is hard to enter progressive politics if you’re not pro-choice, and they were uncomfortable acknowledging their own positions on the issue. Mostly, they wanted to talk about war, jobs, and the environment, not sex and reproduction. After much pressure from both camps to be either pro-choice or pro-life, they adopted the first part of the Third Way message (abortion reduction), then ignored the second part by calling it “common ground.” For the most part, the two parties who have found “common ground” swim in the same pond—they are both opposed to legal abortion. The difference is narrow: one group has never made much of an issue of abortion, and the other has been actively opposed to legal abortion.

Other common-ground efforts on abortion have engaged in much more outreach, worked hard to understand those who were on the other side. Search for Common Ground, a prestigious DC conflict-resolution group that works extensively on peace issues, brought together people who truly disagreed to discuss the issue for several years and make some common policy proposals. The Public Conversation Project in Cambridge, Massachusetts facilitated many dialogues between pro-choice and pro-life advocates: PCP brought together prominent pro-choice leaders from Planned Parenthood and the Archdiocese of Boston (among others) for a two-year dialogue on abortion following the murder of a young receptionist at a clinic by an anti-abortion fanatic.

The current search for common ground seems far less serious about abortion. And so far it hasn’t resulted in peace. What it has done is some aggressive media outreach aimed at promoting its idea of common ground. We caught a piece two religious leaders in the movement published recently in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that exhibited a fairly belligerent style for “common ground,” especially given the fact that neither of these leaders has reached out to the pro-choice side of the debate. They claimed that since both liberals and conservatives “have sharpened their knives” against them, they are onto a good tactic. Sounds good at first blush, but when you look behind the words, it becomes apparent that we are dealing with classic smoke-and-mirrors politics."

[progressoid]

43. Great. Just great.

Like we need more of this kind of thinking in the beltway. :banghead:

[madfloridian]

47. Long term consequences of the Faith-based "common ground" on abortion.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fundamentalist_040809

"3. The Long-Term Consequences of OFBNP's "Common Ground" on Abortion.

"Religious pro-choicers are stung by Obama's willingness to cater to a center that is more aligned with the right than it is with them -- and, by the way, with Obama himself and the majority of Americans.

As Frances Kissling, a visiting scholar at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and former president of Catholics for Choice, told me last week, Obama "has a good short-term strategy to make me happy, but his long-term messaging on this and the long-term messaging of the others, excludes women as moral agents and puts forward an unnuanced notion of abortion as morally wrong period." While Obama might do the right thing now, "that message carried out over long term does . . . create the climate in which eventually abortion could become illegal."

There is no doubt that many of the "centrists" Obama courted during the campaign with his "reducing the need" rhetoric want to see abortion made illegal or at least effectively unavailable.

The Rev. Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, who was recently appointed Dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Boston, agrees that the "abortion reduction" language is aimed at ultimately outlawing abortion. "In the long term, I'm not sure we do ourselves any favors by stigmatizing abortion," says Ragsdale, who has served on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Do I think we going to defuse to adopt some common rhetoric for a little while? No. I think we're being seduced into thinking so that yet again we can move the center further to the right. They're being very successful in seducing much of the left into doing that."

[madfloridian]

49. More details about the last 10 appointees.

http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2009/04/bishop_charles_blake_presiding.html

[madfloridian]

52. This council will advise Obama on "abortion reduction".

BTW, I think the numbers posted by TAPPED are pretty doggone close. I went through the list of the 25, and there are perhaps two more who are not afraid to voice their support for the right of a woman to have an abortion. I am not sure about one, but the other uses the term "abortion reduction" as acceptable.

Out of 25 that is not a good thing for our Democratic women. There are only 7 women on the council, and one of them even signed the letter to Obama to not roll back Bush's edict that doctors and pharmacists and other caregivers can go by their religious beliefs about who they will serve. That is not a good percentage of women, either.

I don't care for the term "abortion reduction" because it continues the right wing frame of making abortion a bad thing that need to be reduced. It will give such negative tones that it will become one of the self-fulfilling things. When that language is used instead of calling it women's choice, it is simply giving more credence to the religious right's fight to ban abortions.

From Sojo in February this year

Abortion Reduction and the Faith-Based Advisory Council

As I discussed in my earlier post, one of the surprising tasks the faith-based office will take on is "abortion reduction," a strategy Faith in Public LIfe has promoted as "common ground" between progressives and centrist evangelicals -- several of whom are serving on the president's advisory council. But the centrist evangelicals' favored approach to abortion reduction goes beyond the prevention of unintended pregnancies to include incentives for women to carry pregnancies to term, or as advisory council member Jim Wallis likes to call it, "the Juno option."

The Rev. Debra Haffner, president of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, objects to the absence of strong voices for reproductive rights on the advisory council. She says:

We have requested a meeting with the new White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to introduce them to the thousands of religious leaders who support sexual justice issues. As of yet, only one of the members of the new Advisory Council for the office is an outspoken supporter of women's reproductive choice (I do not know each person's position), although several of the named persons are vocal anti-choice supporters. Given the President's public commitments and the published White House agenda to work to prevent unintended pregnancies and support women's right to choose, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing finds the lack of known denomination and religious organization leaders who support these issues troubling and disappointing when one of the stated objectives is to "reduce the need for abortion." We are happy to recommend such leaders to fill out the Advisory Committee.

Tony Dungy will not be on the council of 25, but he will be working with President Obama on issues of fatherhood.

The news should cheer the folks over at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who tsked-tsked the president for the appointment in a March 31 statement:

"Dungy, former coach of the Indianapolis Colts football team, has well-known ties with intolerant Religious Right groups. In 2007, for example, he spoke at a fund-raising dinner for the Indiana Family Institute, a James Dobson-affiliated group that opposes gay rights, reproductive rights and separation of church and state."

Dungy will work with the president instead on responsible fatherhood initiatives.

Hubby and I had great respect for Tony Dungy and his time with the Bucs. However his close ties with Promise Keepers worries me...even in the responsible fatherhood advisory role. That group advocates an inferior role for women as NOW has pointed out.

[quiller4]

57. I looked at that list and found 6 who are outspokenly pro-choice

Where did you come up with two?

Pro-choice that I know of:

Richard Stearns, president, World Vision
Bellevue, Wash.

Dr. Sharon Watkins, general minister and president, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Indianapolis, Ind.

Rabbi David N. Saperstein, director and counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Washington, D.C.

Nancy Ratzan, national president, National Council of Jewish Women
Miami, Fla.

Harry Knox, director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign
Washington, D.C.

The Reverend Peg Chemberlin, president-elect, National Council of Churches
Minneapolis, Minn.