Our sincerest prayers go out to Dr. Tiller’s family and friends, as well as to his church family, whose memories of Pentecost Sunday 2009 will be forever marred by this act of heinous violence that happened in their midst. We pray that the God of comfort bring them blessing and hope in a time of deep trial and trauma.

As more information comes out about this disgusting act, it is becoming more and more apparent that verbal violence, the demonization of those on the other side of an incredibly emotional and volatile issue, was a major contributing factor in Dr. Tiller’s assassination.

This assassination should serve as a wake-up call, a clear indication that violent language leads to violent deeds and a clear invitation to all of us to speak and act in good faith and try to find common-ground solutions to our problems. We hope that our brothers and sisters on both sides of this issue will come together with us not only in condemning this act and all acts of terrorism, but also in striving to find common ground and a better way of talking about this issue, in order to ensure that acts of violence like this never happen again.

If every matter of public policy is another battleground in the ultimate war between Good and Evil, then compromise anywhere, on any matter, is sin.

Three days later, Dr. George Tiller, a doctor best known for performing late-term abortions, was shot and killed as he served as an usher at his church on Pentecost Sunday. As the dust clears, it’s laid bare a fact that we all know in our hearts from childhood: Violent words lead to violent deeds.

If the Christian Right’s leaders are telling their followers that abortion is like the Holocaust, and that those who perform abortions are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camp wardens, it shouldn’t be any surprise when one of the followers decides that killing an abortion doctor is a good and wholesome act. And given that there’s a history of violence in the extreme sectors of the movement to criminalize abortion – a history of violence that advocates of legal abortion have for years been linking to violent, demonizing rhetoric – it’s even less of a surprise. We shouldn’t forget that Dr. Tiller himself had been shot in the past by anti-abortion extremists; we also shouldn’t forget that terrorist Eric Rudolph, who set off the bomb during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, also bombed two abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. The assassination of Dr. Tiller is clearly far from an isolated incident.

So what’s the way forward? How do we deal not only with the fact that someone just committed a heinous murder in a church, on Pentecost Sunday, in the name of Christ? What can we do as believers in the Prince of Peace to ensure that no matter where we stand on the issue of abortion, there are no more assassinations like that of Dr. Tiller?

First, we need to tone down the rhetoric. Too often, we demonize people on the other side of the aisle. “She’s pro-choice, so she’s a baby-killer.” “He opposes SCHIP, so he clearly doesn’t care about the poor.” This kind of language presumes bad faith on the part of others and serves to make compromise all but impossible. How could we expect someone who opposes abortion to come to common ground with someone he or she has been told supports a Holocaust, or expect someone who thinks abortion should be legal to sit at a table with someone whom he or she has been taught is a woman-hater? The demonizing rhetoric makes even the simple act of breaking bread – the most basic of human social activities – all but impossible.

Second, we need to have an honest discussion about the issue of abortion. Too often, we’re talking past each other rather than with each other. We don’t trust one another enough to come to consensus solutions or even to talk about the issue. So instead of giving an inch or two here or there, which could lead to good will and good-faith solutions, we entrench ourselves even further in our own positions, believing that any compromise at all with “the enemy” is giving them a beach-head from which to launch an all-out assault. We need to respect that both sides are coming to their opinions out of an honest place of heartfelt concern – and even if we can’t come to a consensus solution (which may, unfortunately, be impossible), we can at least understand one another better, and maybe won’t be so quick to whip out that demonizing language again.

Third, and finally, with that good faith in place, we do need to work towards the common ground we can find. We all agree that regardless of whether or not abortion should be legal, we’d all like to see the number of abortions go down. In a lot of situations, abortion is a symptom of a much deeper social disease – the traps of poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of support that ensnare far too many people in our society. We can come together on things like improving this nation’s rather ghastly foster-care system, which damns far too many children to lives of neglect and abuse.

We can come together on things like improving health care for all children – because even if we differ on whether adults who can work should have a right to health-care benefits, we can all agree that no child should have to suffer from disease or ill-health because his or her parents are poor – no matter where we put the blame for their parents’ poverty. We can come together on things like improving pre-natal care, so that women who are pregnant can have confidence that they’ll give birth to a healthy baby. We can come together and brainstorm ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies – whether that’s through comprehensive sex education programs in the schools with an emphasis (but not an exclusivity) on abstinence, increased access to contraceptives. These are common-sense, common-ground things that we can do to reduce abortion.

Even if we disagree on the particulars of these things – and I know as I write this that we do disagree – we can at least come to the table and hammer out some kind of common ground on the shared understanding that we all want to see abortions decrease. If we start on that basis, if we start with mutual trust and good faith, we’re much less likely to go back to demonizing and hating one another.

But the assassination of Dr. Tiller makes one thing clear – the status quo is untenable. If we go on doing what we’re doing, if we go on making enemies of brothers and sisters, there will only be more violence, more broken hearts, more grieving families, more FBI manhunts. We need to seriously rethink the way we talk about this issue and start trying to see things through the eyes of others. And most importantly, we need to be less Manichaean and more Christian, seeking to follow Christ’s example in putting love before all, in seeing the humanity especially of those we consider to be enemies, in seeking transforming initiatives of peacemaking rather than the perpetuation of verbal violence against one another. Only then will we make progress on this question of deep ethical, moral, and legal import.

It should be noted, especially on controversial issues like this, that Matthew 25 Network bloggers speak only for themselves; the opinions they express are not necessarily the official opinions of the Matthew 25 Network as a whole.

We’d also like to congratulate and express our gratitude to our friends at Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good for their tireless work on behalf of common ground and dialogue, in providing a space for people to express their support for Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins and his choice to invite President Obama to deliver this year’s commencement.

Finally, we’d like to congratulate Notre Dame’s class of 2009 – and all this year’s graduates – on their degrees. The young are this nation’s most valuable resource; young Christians are the vanguard of changing the religious conversation in this country to a more progressive one. Congrats… now go out and change the world.

Part 1:

Parts 2-4, and a transcript, after the jump:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Transcript (from advance text):

Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.
Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.

I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that’s better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world – Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” didn’t pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6′2″ forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare – periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world – a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations – and a task that you are now called to fulfill.

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit – an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.

We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity – diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century – whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease – do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground – recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” – is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man – our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that – when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do – that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “…differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago – also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help – to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame – by the last count, upwards of 80% — have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens – when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another – all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African-American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Thanks to the Huffington Post for linking us to the video and prepared remarks.

Today Deal called us “surrogates” for Kathleen Sebelius. I guess for pointing out, accurately, that she reduced the number of abortions in Kansas. While I would be honored to be a surrogate for the administration or Sec. Sebelius, I felt it was necessary to clearly say we are not.

Further he calls our claims “dishonest” citing a commentary by his friend Dr. Michael New over on Robert George’s blog. New says the suggestion that Sebilius reduced abortions is wrong on three fronts. He starts

First and foremost, abortion statistics from Kansas are among the least reliable in the country. Between 1979 and 1987 data from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment indicate that the number of abortions performed in Kansas fell by almost 50 percent. Then between 1987 and 1992 the number of abortions suddenly increased by 73 percent. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment states that these sharp fluctuations are partly due to changes in reporting and not the actual incidence of abortion. Furthermore, according to data from the CDC, 40 percent of Kansas abortions are performed on out of state residents, which is one of the highest figures in the country.

Well, with a little research, one finds this is largely due to access to clinics in Kansas coupled with surrounding state laws. Further, his last point “40 percent of Kansas abortions are performed on out of state residents, which is one of the highest figures in the country,” actually suggest that Sebelius’ policies worked better than we initially reported because her abortion reduction policies are primarily focussed on citizens of her own state.

Furthermore, when discussing this abortion decline it is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that Catholics United makes no mention of the Casey style “Women’s Right to Know Bill” which took effect in Kansas in 1997. This bill gives women seeking abortions information on fetal development, health risks involved with abortion, and public and private sources of support for single mothers. My research indicates that these laws have been effective at reducing abortion rates in other states. Furthermore, Catholic United does not mention the increased scrutiny given to late term abortionist George Tiller by both former Attorney General Phill Kline and Operation Rescue.

“Women’s Right to Know Bill,” which New writes about here, simply does not justify a 1-1 correlation in abortion reduction measures. Especially if you control for the 40% out-of-state abortions. His suggestion that “My research indicates that these laws have been effective,” way oversteps the conclusions that his research ought to allow for. Further, we (and CU) took the George Tiller story head on. He then writes,

Furthermore, during her tenure as Governor, Kathleen Sebelius has failed to support a number of policies that would have further reduced abortions in Kansas. Sebelius cut state funding for abortion alternatives, vetoed a bill imposing minimal sanitary standards, on abortion clinics, and vetoed a bill that would have strengthened Kansas’s parental notification law. More shocking, is Sebelius’ unyielding support for late-term abortions. She has vetoed a measure that would require explicit medical reasons for late-term abortions and vetoed another measure which would require abortion providers to report the diagnosis which necessitated a post-viability abortion.

This is a faulty argument. I think what he means to say is that Sebilius faced a budget crisis and cut across the board – just like nearly every other state. And, This late-term stuff is the same lie they pushed with Obama. The law as written was unconstitutional. And, late-term abortion legislation already stood on the state and federal level.

You know it is fine to be unwilling to work practically to help women and reduce the numbers of abortions. This group of men have done that for years. But I just wish they wouldn’t distort the truth so openly.

The abortion reduction movement continues to gain steam. Watch the segment below.

Not only does she claim that Sebelius is a “dangerous choice” based on the (false) accusation that Sebelius has ties to George Tiller (Alan Boswell has debunked this false charge below) but she actually claims that abortions have  increased in Kansas under Sebelius’ term (which is also debunked below by Boswell).

I do not know where Wright gets her figures.  She cites no evidence to support her statements.  As far as I can tell, this is indicative of the utter lack of respect for people and, above all, facts by some who claim to be Christian!

Are we to presume that the pro-life movement cares nothing about the actual reduction of abortions and more about slandering those who are associated with Obama?

I guess so.

As Christians dedicated to finding common ground solutions to reduce the number of abortions in America, we welcome President Obama’s nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Under Governor Sebelius’ leadership, abortions have decreased in Kansas by 10 percent, adoption funding and incentives have increased, healthcare access for women and families has expanded, prenatal care has become more widely available, and legislation protecting the unborn from crime has become law. Such a record demonstrates a commitment to results rather than rhetoric on life issues.

She is a Democratic Governor who has been elected by wide margins in a state where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats two to one. Her nomination has already won not only the support of Democrats, but also praise from Republican pro-life senators such as Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and governors such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia. Her record and her relationships with leaders in both parties are proof that pro-choice and pro-life leaders can work together to advance a pro-family agenda.

The governor, who is by all accounts a person of deep faith, deserves a fair hearing in Congress and in the public square. Efforts to discredit her will no doubt arise, but we hope that such tactics will not succeed in taking focus off of her record of reducing abortions and supporting women and families in Kansas – and the task that lies ahead of us all: working together to improve health care and reduce the number of abortions in America.

The list of signatures is listed after the jump.

Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed, Northland, FL

David Gushee, President, Evangelicals for Human Rights and Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA

Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Sacramento, CA

Brian McLaren, Author and Founding Pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, Spencerville, MD

Glen Stassen, Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA

Melissa Rogers, Director, Center for Religion and Public Affairs, Wake Forest University Divinity School, Falls Church, VA/ Winston-Salem, NC

Randall Balmer, Professor of American Religious History, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY

Tony Jones, Author, Speaker and Theologian, Edina, MN

Jennifer Butler, Executive Director, Faith in Public Life, Washington, DC

Derrick Harkins, Board Member, World Relief and Senior Pastor, Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, Washington, DC

Paul De Vries, Board Member, National Association of Evangelicals, President, NY Divinity School, New York, NY

Peter Hetzel, Assistant Professor of Theology, New York Theological Seminary, New York, NY

Tyler Wigg Stevenson, Director, Two Futures Project, Nashville, TN

Let’s address this head on. Gov. Sebelius, as a Catholic, has repeatedly stated her pro-life convictions. What she opposes, as do many who hold pro-life values, is the criminalization of abortion for the patient or doctor. Instead, she has advocated for the common ground, real-results approach of reducing the number of abortions through reducing unwanted pregnancies and promoting adoptions.

Here is Gov. Sebelius’s record during her tenure as governor:

• Abortion has dropped 8.5% from 2002 to 2007 in Kansas (see reports here)
• Teen pregnancy has dropped 7% from 2002 to 2006 (see reports here)
• Funding for adoption support increased by $2.1 million
• She signed law doubling the adoption tax credit
• She signed law aiding in the adoption process

In addition, Gov Sebelius signed into law Alexa’s Law, legally protecting the unborn child in the case of a crime against the mother — a law which goes well beyond even the similar Mosaic law found in Exodus 21:22. And this Dr. George Tiller you keep hearing about? It so happens that Gov.-Sebelius-appointed state attorney general is prosecuting him for violating late-term abortion state laws.

The personal smears need to stop. For those who relish the culture wars (and for those entrenched political interests whose very fuel is the culture wars), the “criminalize abortion” ideology will always matter more than any actual progress on reducing the number of abortions in this country. For the rest of us who desire a constructive political debate where substantive policy goals (such as health care!) and practical solutions drive the conversation, I suggest ignoring the Right’s character assassination attempt on Gov. Sebelius.

ALSO: Fellow Kansan and Catholic Sen. Brownback is supporting the nomination. If even Sen. Brownback, whose office allowed his name to be used in the recent fundraising letter that hit a new low by attacking the faith of his own Congressional colleagues, is supporting her, I think that is a good indication of how misguided (and pointless) of a battle this is for the Right.

ALSO: Did anyone else notice the overtly shoddy reporting done by the The Hill in the article i linked to up top? Not only does it just take the Religious Right’s opposition dump largely at its word while giving very little voice to the larger, more reasonable pro-life community not represented by the voices of the likes of Tony Perkins, but it even seems to state — or at least strongly imply — that Catholics United is a “pro-abortion rights” group. That is simply not true and is very poor reporting.

Obama administration may rescind ‘conscience rule’ 

Officials say the move seeks to clarify rules for health care workers
By Noam N. Levey | Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the “conscience rule” comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

Some will be upset over Obama’s position here.  But, in my opinion, it is completely correct for a couple reasons.

1. Doctors are not forced to provide procedures they disagree with, yet only make it known to their patients that the procedure is an option.  In areas unique from abortion you would be quite thankful that your doctor is obligated to provide you with all your options.  For example, this allows you to know that refusing treatment is an option for terminal illness.  For 30 years, doctors have been protected from performing procedures against their will.  President Obama is supportive of that protection.  But performing a procedure and giving advice of options are quite different things.

2. The suggestion that this is government overstepping on personal morality is completely false.  Think of the number of positions lawyers find themselves in that seemingly go against their “conscience.”  If an attorney could simply follow his or her “conscience” it is doubtful attorney-client privilege would exist.  How would a “conscience rule” apply to other legally “privileged” areas like the confessional booth or psychologist’s office?

3. The “conscience rule,” in the Bush mode, is not simply about contraceptives.  Yes, that was the main target.  But, the rule had broad-standing legal obligations for many medical areas.  It is simple-minded to view the order through the contraceptives frame, and that is likely why the courts would have struck it down anyway.  The AMA and Methodist Church have both criticized the broadness of the Bush rule.  Abortion has long been covered by a ‘conscience rule,’ but the Bush Admin – in targeting contraceptives – actually created a rule way beyond that purview.

4. The rule was ethically irresponsible because it suggests that the moral burden for personal health decision-making lies with the doctor.  Decision-making is not what makes the medical profession a moral task – care giving is.  When doctors assume the ethical choices of their patients they are no longer care-givers.  It is no kind of care to deny one’s ability to control your own life.  The ability to make your own choices, in fact, is the very sort of love God granted us within the Christian tradition.

5. Leaving your medical care to the luck-of-the-draw in terms of your doctor’s religious beliefs is ridiculous – especially if the doctor does not have to make her beliefs known when denying the fullness of available care.  The “conscience rule” sounds good to those prideful enough to think everyone shares their morality.  But, what if your doctor is from a tradition which denies all medical care?  Should he or she be able to deny all medical treatment?  Is that even a doctor?

The “conscience rule” sounds good on a simple level.  I was even initially attracted to it.  From a basic standpoint, we do not want people to be forced to act against their consciences.  But, upon further reflection, this rule is morally ill-conceived.  Sure, we have allowed a ‘conscientious objectors’ caveat for military service.  But once you’ve joined the military, you’re expected to be a soldier.  Same goes for doctors, lawyers, pastors, police officers, etc.  It would be quite dangerous if in the day-to-day practice of being soldiers, lawyers, or police officers, individuals were navigating issues like pacifism, client-privilege, or the death penalty.  We don’t want our soldiers to quit fighting under the guise of pacifism.  We don’t want our attorneys to give up their clients in a choice for full disclosure, or our police not to arrest a suspected murderer because he or she may be executed.  In all of these careers, like the medical profession, morality ought to be seen in the calling to the task at hand.  Setting aside the fact the the doctor does not even have to “provide,” yet simply make known the option of a treatment, the act of conscience for a Doctor is in providing the best and fullest care available – not in the momentary choosing for the patient the sort of health-care the doctor is most comfortable with.

I congratulate the Obama Administration for turning their back on this morally prideful, divisive, illegal, and ill-conceived attempt at governance by the Bush Administration.  Bush snuck this in at the midnight hour.  The Obama HHS office is calling for reflective consideration in the light of day.