Former President Jimmy Carter has announced that he is leaving the Southern Baptist Church after sixty years because of its treatment of girls and women.
[It was an] unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
Read Carter's full statement here. (By the way, I'm just shocked that I haven't seen any media coverage of this.)
UPDATE: Apparently Carter leaving the church is old news, but he issued a position paper this week on the subject, severing all ties. Thanks!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jimmy Carter leaves Southern Baptist Church, cites sexism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15043
Wow! If only current politicians could leave their churches without jeopardizing their political careers by doing so...
Worked for Obama, I actually know personally of a few votes he gained by how he handled Leaving Wrights' Church.
Fair enough. But you don't see too many church-less politicians... I always wonder how many of my fellow atheists are pretending to be believers for the sake of gaining votes.
Way to go Mr. President! As others have said, if only current politicians could take such a stance. (I am also amazed that the MSM has not covered this.)
Regarding kahri's comment about how many atheists are pretending to be believers for the sake of gaining votes, the answer must surely be pretty much everyone. As another atheist, it would be interesting to see statistics on the number of politicians who have openly run as atheists and won. Many have commented that atheists are the group most excluded from elected office.
Why does there even have to be a belief that people are born sinful? What's sinful about a baby? People can become sinful, but they're not born that way. But I guess if you don't believe you're born sinful, Christians might be afraid there'd be no reason to adhere to the religion.
Even if it happened a while ago, I like any press about prominent people publicly distancing themselves from negative, stereotypical and demeaning religious beliefs. I like it when Muslims do it and I like it when Christians do it. It shows they have integrity.
Why do people have to be born sinful?
Um because God said so, duh :P
But I guess if you don't believe you're born sinful, Christians might be afraid there'd be no reason to adhere to the religion.
This is just silly. People don't BELIEVE things because they're good for business. While the concept of being born with sin has not always been a part of Christian doctrine (and I don't know enough to speculate on how and why that particular bit of doctrine developed), it's much more likely that people BELIEVE it because they are looking for a reason why humans invariably fuck up in various aspects of their lives, in large and small ways. One could even see it as simply a metaphor for human fallibility: babies are born with sin because they are human, and therefore imperfect. There's not necessarily anything sinister about it.
Babies being born with sin tacked onto them is kind of sinister in my book. And absurd. Better baptize them quick or they'll spend an eternity in Purgatory!
There's been coverage of this in the Australian press, I've seen at least one article and two opinion pieces much to my delight.
Is the concept of Original Sin unique to the Southern Baptist Church, or is it something that all Christian denominations believe in?
As a Jew, the idea is completely foreign to me - we believe everyone is born a blank slate and has the capacity for both good and bad.
I ask because I'm wondering if there are demoninations outside the Southern Baptist church that don't pin the original sin bit on Eve (as in, is Carter leaving the entire religion, or just this Church? Is there another church he can join?). Obviously since Jews don't have any original sin concept, we also don't believe that Eve is responsible for the fall of humanity, as we haven't fallen!
I should add I'm not really interested in the "your religions are inherently sexist, you can't change or escape it" arguments that often accompany religious postings here - I'm interested in hearing how other religious people understand their religion. The different takes on it always fascinate me, and I'm not really sure what the context is for leaving a specific church.
Generally, the more conservative denominations accept original sin (or something similar). The liberal ones are often a bit vague, as they typically accept the concept of humanity's inherently sinful nature despite acknowledging evolution, which throws an obvious kink in the story.
Original sin isn't unique to the SBC. I would say that most Protestant denominations adhere to the original sin idea. I've attended churches in a number of denominations, and even in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which is supposed to be the most liberal theologically, most people still believed in original sin. I've always been more partial to the blank slate idea in Judaism as it seems to make more intuitive sense to me, but I've seen plenty of Proties talk about the sins of preschool-aged children. Most of the people I knew growing up really believed that we (no one) are not worthy of the love of God because "we are all sinners and come short of the glory of God" (can't remember the citation for the verse right now).
As a liberal Christian, I do not believe in Original Sin, but I also don't have a Christian church home. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, which allows me to chart my own spiritual path without denominational dogma getting in the way.
I grew up Southern Baptist. Though I had a distaste with the church from the age of 11 or 12, I considered myself officially "separated" after the 2000 statement about women. Unlike other denominations and religions, there's no official separation for Southern Baptists. You simply stop going to church, and you can request your name be removed from a church's membership roster if you wish. Still it isn't like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons in that there's no official process or proclamation about you, so it's hard to judge how many people leave the SBC.
The concept of Original Sin actually predates Protestantism and Catholicism, and is found in the writings of the earliest years of the Christian Church. Its among the most fundamental of Christian principles, though its application, prominence & interpretation (to the subjugation of women, for instance) has varied widely over time.
I grew up in the Church of Christ (sibling to the Christian Church in the Restoration movement), and in my church they were vehemently opposed to the idea of orinal sin. The claim was that this is a misinterpretation of a scripture that refers to the sins of the fathers falling on the shoulders of the sons (apparently mothers and daughters are blameless?), and was taken to mean that children are actually born guilty of sin. Hence the whole infant baptism thing in the Catholic church and most protestant churches that followed from it.
The restoration churches believe that you can't be guilty of sin until you're old enough to understand good and evil, so they have an "age of accountability," which varies somewhat from person to person, and won't baptize anyone until s/he expresses an understanding of baptism and sin and the need for forgiveness, and feels the need to be baptized. So that scripture (and others like it) are taken to refer to a sinful nature, which is totally different from original sin. In other words, they also believe people can potentially be good or evil, but because of the fall of Adam and Eve, we will tend to sin at times, and nobody can live their whole life without sin. And all it takes is one sin to make you "fall short of the glory of God."
I can't believe how well I remember this stuff...
The idea of "original sin" isn't exclusive to Southern Baptists by any means, but where you go with it varies among denominations (and even congregations).
I was raised Lutheran (ELCA), and while original sin was part of the story, Eve's role was that of "flawed human" not "flawed woman." And beyond that, the take away message was focused on hope and salvation rather than shame and damnation.
My parents' congregation 'called' a female pastor in 1998, which was pretty progressive for a small farm town in the Midwest. In this case, a few people left *because* of female leadership (citing scripture that forbade women from holding positions of authority), but everyone else stayed, welcomed her, and gave her a fair shot. In the end, it wasn't a good fit, but even when things got messy, no one blamed her gender.
Things like this, (and the conversation currently happening in the Episcopal church, etc.), are proof to me that religions be changed. At least the protestant denominations with which I'm familiar are constantly negotiating the tensions between tradition and modern day compassion. Thank you for bringing this up.
Um, I do believe that most Christian denominations adhere to the original sin belief.
I personally consider myself a Unitarian Christian, which means that although my spiritually is grounded in the concept of God, Jesus, some traditional bible teachings, I also believe in the values of the Unitarian church. The Unitarian church is a church that embraces various religious/spiritual philosophies and is committed to social justice and progressive/liberal causes.
As far as the issues that some have with Christianity and the Bible as it relates to women, um, I guess I haven't really thought about it that much. I recently watched this program on the history channel though about books/stories of strong and what we consider feminist women that were purposely left out of the Bible and it was very interesting. I have a very open minded view of spirituality and God in general, so I don't necessarily view the Bible as literal; I think of it as a book of stories and advice designed to help guide the lives of believers. I'm more interested in having a personal relationship with God than adhering to strict dogma or teachings.
The New Testament explicitly blames Eve for the Fall (1 Tim 2:12-14). Most of the prominent early Christian theologians, the "Church Fathers", followed this lead. The language used when the Old Testament was translated into Latin also encoded the Fall as Eve's "fault." The actual idea of 'original sin' doesn't come up until the fourth century, however. But enough with that.
In many of the creeds that develop around the time of the Reformation refer to "Adam's sin" and the "sin of Adam." These are used as the foundations of many of today's mainline Protestant denominations. The (modern) Catholic catechism refers to both Adam and Eve having sinned, and BOTH their sins causing the fallen state of humanity. The denomination in which I grew up, Presbyterian Church-USA (fairly liberal), doesn't espouse a specific sin-act by two ancient people but rather that *all* humans sin. The Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't have a doctrine of original sin, but holds that both Adam and Eve sinned.
As a brief summary, I guess you could say that since the Reformation, Christians often, though not always, *talk* as though Adam sinned, but *act* as though Eve did.
Many feminist theologians consider the real original sin to be social injustice. I can't point you to a specific "feminist denomination," but I have found that many individual congregations of the United Church of Christ tend to be fairly influenced by feminist theology.
As a brief summary, I guess you could say that since the Reformation, Christians often, though not always, *talk* as though Adam sinned, but *act* as though Eve did.
That's actually really interesting. Do you think that's a reflection of what's going on in the rest of the world outside the church - a misogynist society applying its misogynist beliefs to religion?
BTW, thanks to everyone who's answered my question, it's enlightening!!
Oh, absolutely. Religion is a cultural artifact, and thus religious beliefs and practices can be as colored by social attitudes as anything else. My specific area of knowledge is Christianity, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if any patriarchal society would give rise to a patriarchal interpretation of faith.
An example I particularly like:
In the Book of Genesis, there are actually two separate creation stories, Gen 1 and Gen 2. In the first one, God creates "man and woman" simultaneously, in God's image. In the second one, God creates a'dam ("man" ), sees that man is alone, makes the animals, sees that the animals are not enough, then takes a rib from man/Adam and makes hava/Eve. Well, in the New Testament, Paul and the other letter-writers lean exclusively on the Gen 2 story, in which Eve is made from Adam. By this time, the Book of Genesis had pretty much been solidified into its current form; Paul & Co. could have used either or both stories, but actively chose to use the latter one. I doubt this was a fresh-start decision, a "ooh, we're starting a new religion, up with the patriarchy!" but rather they were just using the story that mirrored attitudes--the story that *felt* true to them.
Theologians over the centuries have tended to follow the New Testament in privileging Gen 2 over Gen 1. It is great fun to watch modern-day biblical literalists try to hold onto the seven-day account of creation (Gen 1), in which the animals predate man-and-woman, while keeping Gen 2's world-man-animals-woman chronology in which there is no mention of anything resembling seven days.
If you're super-curious, check out Elizabeth Johnson's "She Who Is" or Anne Clifford's "Introducing Feminist Theology."
Roman Catholics definitely believe that Original Sin exists and that Eve is to blame for it, even though Adam and Eve were not thrown out of Paradise until he ate the apple. Apparently, Eve was not significant enough to have caused banishment from Paradise by eating the apple, but is blamed for it anyway. As far as I know, all Christian Protestant sects hold the same belief, so I'm not aware of any alternative Christian church that Carter could join. He doesn’t need any of them. He is probably the most honorable man on the planet.
1. The banishment didn't occur the moment Adam ate the apple either. There was a lag.
2. Part of God's wrath had to do with them trying to lie to Her.
3. In some interpretations, Adam deliberately eats the apple knowing the consequences because he loves Eve more than the garden. The implication is that God would have let Adam stay and kicked Eve out, or that's what Adam thought He would do.
Also, there's no reason to think it was an apple. I think in the actual scriptures it's just referred to as a fruit, but since the pictures we all saw in our Sunday School lessons made it look like an apple, it is now officially known as "the apple."
I love this kind of example of how cultural mythology evolves.
That's true. I've heard (Dan Brown perhaps?) that the identification of the forbidden fruit with apples was a response to the role of apples in European Pagan mythology that the Church was demonizing.
Ooh, that's an interesting twist.
I'm Jewish too, but I think Original Sin is intrinsic to most Christian sects. It's an essential part of Jesus saving them from sin, and salvation by Grace and/or Faith. The core point of Christianity is that people don't deserve eternal life and can't earn it ourselves, but that it's a free gift offered by Jesus. But as some have said, it's the more conservative fire-and-brimstone groups that dwell most on Original and every other kind of Sin.
The really hardcore conservative faiths use to proclaim "infant damnation," meaning that babies who died before baptism would be cast into Hell because of O.S. Catholics were kinder with Limbo, where babies with no sins of their own but no relationship with Jesus went. I think John Paul II changed it so that babies go to Heaven now.
Presbyterianism without infant damnation would be like the dog on the train that couldn't be identified because it had lost its tag. - Mark Twain
Okay, I gotta stick up for my former denomination: most theologians in the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition--this would include Presbyterians--have held to a doctrine of infant salvation, regardless of whether or not the baby has been baptized. I realize that Mark Twain is not exactly, well, alive today, but for the record both the more liberal and the more conservative PC denominations today believe that God extends God's grace to all children who die in infancy. Baptism is a *sign* of the covenant; it does not *create* the covenant.
Like I said, "use to".
Once again, though, you're not distinguishing between original sin and the belief that humans have a sinful nature, or are prone to sinning at times. These are completely different things. Under original sin, a child is actually born guilty of sin already. At birth. The sins of the fathers, etc. This is the old school Catholic ideal that necessitated infant baptism, and many protestant denominations inherited this doctrine when they split off.
But that is entirely different from believing that humans have a sinful nature or will inevitably sin at some point. And this idea that every person will sin at some point in their life is also somewhat compatible with the blank slate ideal, or the Aristotelian idea that humans have the potential to be either good or bad, depending on their environment and temperament. Otherwise, why would organized religions encourage their participants to change their behavior and live an upright life? They must believe that humans have the capacity for both good and evil, or it would be pointless to be exhorting them to live a certain way.
Carter actually left the Southern Baptists in 2000 and started the New Baptist Covenant in 2006. He did this as a response to the Southern Baptist Conference's decision to uphold wifely submission and to disallow women preachers. His decision to leave the Southern Baptists (though he still considers himself Baptist) is not new. This statement from Carter is actually about the platform of his group The Elders- social justice oriented group he has formed with other "elderly" leaders such as Nelson Mandela.
Thanks for pointing this out! You can read an article from 2000 here: http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/10_23/pages/carter.html
Yes, and ABC covered it three years ago:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=95311
Jessica,
I want to note that I haven't seen any coverage of his recent statement on the issue, even though him leaving has been previously covered. So in that sense, you are still correct.
I've always liked Jimmy Carter.
I LOVE JIMMY CARTER. He is my favorite president of the last century. I think he largely failed as a president because he stuck to his goddamn guns and did not compromise his core beliefs.
I love Jimmy Carter and applaud him for this. But the reason that this hasn't gotten more press was that he made the split almost ten years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/21/us/carter-sadly-turns-back-on-national-baptist-body.html
"But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."
WOW!
Amen.
This isn't exactly breaking news. He left the southern baptist church almost 20 years ago
I was delighted to read about this. It's time for more public figures to call organized religion out on its sexism and to encourage interfaith discussion on women's rights.
There came a point for me where I had to choose between being a Catholic or being a feminist. I'm glad I made the right decision.
Me too. Dirty secret: Though I believe spirituality exists on a spectrum (like many other things), I still miss being Catholic. BUT, the reason I'm no longer Catholic is because I felt I couldn't have ANY conflicting beliefs with being Catholic, so I use the umbrella term of Christian. At least that seems more flexible to me. I guess I just miss the familiarity/comfort of being Catholic if that makes any sense.
A friend of mine encouraged me to read the Gnostic texts since they're more woman friendly. That's on the agenda for my next trip to the library.
All I can really say about this is RIGHT ON, PRESIDENT CARTER!
BO's Presidential accomplishments have yet to be written, but this is why Carter is my favorite President of the last 50 years. He's done so much since the Presidency that it easily equals a 2nd, or even 3rd term.
I wrote my high school AP US History paper on how John Quincy Adams and Jimmy Carter, two "failed" presidents who were defeated for reelection, had been the most important and effective post-presidency. It seemed highly original and insightful at the time!
First let me say that I have nothing but respect for President Carter. I have met him, have attended his church in Georgia, and have worked on the same build sites with him with Habitat for Humanity. I love this man. And I love what he has to say about equality and the Southern Baptist Church (in which I was unfortunately raised).
But let's take a step back. Carter is in his 80s. He only started distancing himself from the SBC in 2000 over racial issues, and only now is he saying anything about sexism. Come on. Where was this noble stance when he was running for president? Or ten years ago? Again, I revere this man. But this would mean more if it weren't coming so late in the game for him, after so many years of being a leader in a church that blatantly discriminated against women all that time. So let's not treat this as any kind of turning point for the Baptist Church's views on women's place in society. They couldn't care less what Carter says.
The scriptures discussing womens place in the assembly is just that. Women are to be silent in the assembly, (not in society). The woman is not to usurp authority over the man,..in the assembly. The scriptures also teach husband to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Now I do not believe that women in society would have any fault with that.
I believe the Baptist's stand on women's rights are talking about women in the church. Scripture does teach that women are to keep silent in the assembly (not society). Scripture does teach that women are not to usurp authority over the man in the assembly (not society). I am a Baptist woman and have no difficulty with that at all. God has put women in a special place in the church. She is to be loved by her husband as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Women are the ones who have abused her role.
Ageist much, friendlyfeminist? It doesn't matter how old someone is when they choose to take a stand. Let's celebrate it! If that person is world-famous and influential, let's celebrate it all the more.
Everyone, please note this is NOT a case of a man blindly following a sexist religion his whole life and then suddenly seeing the light. The Southern Baptist Convention is moving BACKWARD. In the 70's, more & more SBC women were being ordained & Carter was supportive of that. Since that time, the SBC has become slowly more conservative & more anti-woman. At first it was like a frog in water being slowly heated.
Then in 2000, the SBC made some majorly anti-woman statements. Carter and others stood up IMMEDIATELY when that happened. (That is when I left also.) Carter didn't sever his ties, but has tried to be a positive influence on the SBC even as he helped found a new branch of inclusive Baptists.
Carter was and is a good man. While his departure isn't totally new news, I THANK him making this BOLD statement for women. And if you lived in the Bible belt, you would understand what a bold statement it really is.
"Ageist much, friendlyfeminist? It doesn't matter how old someone is when they choose to take a stand. Let's celebrate it! If that person is world-famous and influential, let's celebrate it all the more."
Yes, better late than never! :)
Did she say anything about his age?
"But let's take a step back. Carter is in his 80s."
Ah, you're right.
OK, I seem to be the one making all the little but terrifically relevant distinctions in this thread, so here we go again.
Ageism is actually the belief that someone is inferior or less valuable or irrelevant because of their age. This is not the claim that friendlyfeminist is making. She's saying that it's disappointing that it took him so long to take this stance. And that's not ageism. Criticizing someone for taking a long time to own a public position on a topic is different from saying that whatever he says now is irrelevant because he's so old and worthless.
Just sayin'.
Why is it so hard for most people to come to Jimmy Carter's conclusion? It drives me NUTS
But what do I know, I'm only a woman... and secular humanist.
It's very interesting to read this at a time when I am wrestling with my own Church's position. I am a part of the Lutheran church of Australia, which about 3 years ago voted to continue to restrict the ordaination of pastors to men only. I don't want to be a pastor myself, and I love my church and am grateful to all the church has given me especially at a very difficult time in my life. But I find it hard to reconcile my belief in a graceful and loving God who thinks I'm worth enough that he'll die for me, with a belief that merely because of my gender I can't speak God's word in church....
So I applaud Jimmy Carter. I haven't been attending for 18 mths but can't bring myself to say yes, I'be left, or to join another denomination... I wish my church would accept women as leaders, so I could remain within it but as it stands, I feel rejected and excluded. Sigh. Much ambivalence.
Lest we forget, the Word says that women are to keep silence in the assembly, that we are not to usurp autority over the man. Also the the male who gets the call to pastor, must be the husband of one wife. A woman can not meet this criteria unless she is married to another woman and you know what the Word says about that. Women have a special call, to be loved as Christ loved the church, to teach her children and bring them up in the way they should go. I feel blessed to be among this group, not unequal but special. The word is the same yesterday and today.
The reason that this isn't big news (at least amongst those who follow this type of thing) is because he left the SBC in 2000. http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/10_23/pages/carter.html I applaud his motives in both cases, but he was already with the CBF when this latest bit came out.
"This document says nothing about LGBT issues, and that is a tragic shortcoming. But it does say something about women, and in that it only came part way, that part is very strong indeed. It isn't enough, but it is something."
More like "It is something, but it isn't enough." It obviously is something, but what is it? How are we supposed to read this -- either Carter's article or the analysis? If people want to praise him for criticizing churches and religion in general for not being the advocate it could and should be for concerns related to women, including overt physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, fine, he has done that before, and this position paper is another good example of it. But no, he didn't mention LGBT issues, and neither did he mention reproductive health/rights/privacy issues. And what's more, neither have any feminist/pro-choice/progressive/at all left-of-center commentaries or blogs mentioned his omission of reproductive-related issues.
Former President Jimmy Carter is 85 years old and has enormous, well-respected experience in international diplomacy, but on relatively liberal/progressive social issues his record is dismal. Pushing 90 is no excuse for not even mentioning these issues, we'd rather have read some sort of "common ground" position than nothing at all, as flawed as we think that trendy attempt at compromise is.
Former President Jimmy Carter never has felt comfortable talking about his opinions even on official policy related to abortion or even contraception, not even when he was in office from 1977 to 1981 with support as strong as it was for abortion rights and government funding for programs like Title X. Histories of the religious right (and secular right) movements cite his administration's years as a turning point for right-wing and anti-choice activists, when they first found serious vulnerabilities in pro-choice and in particular Democratic support for reproductive choice policies.
Before the Carter administration, the only significant anti-choice victory was the Hyde Amendment in 1976, which reflected not only some organized support for anti-choice policies but also ambivalent support from the medical community which was afraid a federal government mandate for abortion would mandate doctors to perform them and risk malpractice suits for alleged injuries, infection, or infertility -- and doctors at that time were undergoing a serious crisis in malpractice suits for many reasons, in particular in OB/GYN related cases. That was a factor in passing the Hyde amendment which hasn't been in place since then, the medical community after that began to take a stronger stand in arguing for reproductive rights issues, as it had before Roe.
Aside from the Hyde amendment, anti-choice groups existed in the 1970s but had minimal influence -- until the ascendancy of the religious right during the Carter administration. Professional medical organizations and feminist clinics worked together remarkably well, despite concerns from feminists of exploitation historically by medical providers (demonstrably the case after the 1910 Flexner Report, documented aptly by Gena Corea, Barbara Ehrenreich, Linda Gordon, and numerous others.). Feminists were never in the forefront of advocating lawsuits against reproductive health providers – anti-choice groups were – and it wasn’t lack of cooperation between feminist health activists and the professional medical community that led to vulnerabilities that the anti-choice movement exploited, it was more ambivilance and opposition within the political parties, and one hears so little about that from pro-choice and progressive democratic perspectives.
So why don't we read more -- at least in histories of the era -- of Carter's and his administration's policies on reproductive health issues? It is beyond frustrating to see feminist critiques of his position on "women's rights" that do not even mention his avowed discomfort with reproductive rights-related issues. It leaves pro-choice activist groups open to accusations that they are primarily a GOTV (get out the vote) campaign for liberal democrats and occasionally a republican here and there, and secondarily an advocacy group for reproductive health care professionals. Oh, and advocacy for the pharmaceutical industry too, at least the part that makes birth control drugs and devices. But we never read about that -- well, maybe from the opposition, but not from most other pro-choice and feminist activists.
Instead -- as in today, literally -- we read about how republicans and anti-choice activists are threatening to ban abortion again by, for example, national health reform that will not include "women's reproductive health care", and the latest appeals in our inbox ask for money and signatures to an online petition saying "women's reproductive health care MUST be part of health care reform". We read that in an email we got today from a national pro-choice group whose petition mentiones anti-choice opposition but does not mention abortion or even contraception.
To quote verbatim:
End quote.
It's wonderful that they want to defend reproductive health care for women, but what aspects in particular do we want our legislators to be concerned about -- breast and ovarian cancer, for example, or abortion and contraception? And for which women -- middle-class and better-off women who have traditionally had health insurance? How about poor women who have not been able to afford it or whose employer doesn't offer it, or young women who have not had to get it on their own independent from their parents yet? No wonder appeals read like they could apply just as well to stunt doubles for the cast of "Sex and the City" than women who have traditionally found reproductive health care services difficult or impossible to access, and who are especially the targets of anti-choice law and policy -- as they are really the targets of anti-choice law and policy, and not so much women in general.
If one wants to read enough into vague references that are even in Carter's position paper, no doubt one could say that even he would (or that he MUST) support "women's reproductive health care" as a part of "health care reform."
If activists choose their words vaguely enough, the constituent will see what they want to see, and donate or vote for whatever it is they think they are donating for.