Today, Donald Trump is joining anti-abortion activists to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending abortion rights in many states.

The pro-choice position is consistent with Christian ethics. As the United Church of Christ has long maintained, Jesus affirmed the moral agency of women. Those of us who are Christian should follow that example. That means, like Jesus, we trust women to make their own decisions.

The Bible, however, offers no clear guidance on abortion as we understand it today. So while many opponents of abortion point to vague passages to justify their stance, they are just bending the text to fit their concerns.

As an example, pro-life activists often quote Psalm 139 ("For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb." v.13 NRSV) as evidence that God would oppose abortion. However, this text, in which the author reflects on humanity's relationship with God, has nothing to do with abortion.

In considering abortion, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ has repeatedly noted that reverence for human life is what the Bible advocates. Such reverence must extend to the life and well-being of pregnant women and the life of a child after birth.

Returning the United States to the pre-Roe v Wade days did not end abortion. It would merely returned abortions to the back alleys, where women risk their health and even their lives. How is that be pro-life?

Abortion rates dropped dramatically during the Obama administration, as access to family planning, sex education in schools and contraception expanded. If you want to reduce abortion rates, support family planning. Many pro-life politicians and religious leaders do not support family planning or sex education in public schools. In essence, pro-life leaders help create the "crisis" they claim to despise.

We should also do everything possible to expand support for mothers, families and children. No one should be feel forced to have an abortion out of financial concern. That is no real choice at all.

Efforts to expand adoption services should also be a priority, not because a woman should ever be forced to carry a fetus to term, but because adoption is a choice for many, and it remains underfunded.

Yet, again, too many pro-life politicians and religious leaders oppose child care tax credits and food assistance to support newborn babies and their families. The efforts to ban abortion — by mostly male politicians — are a political effort. Some involved have a genuine concern for babies' lives, but for many, that concern ends once the baby is born.

For these men, it is about having control over women. For Jesus, it was about trusting women.

Jesus tells us to put concerns for the least of these — children, those living in poverty — ahead of other matters. But, unfortunately, I am convinced that the primary concern is control over women for many pro-life politicians and religious leaders, not a reverence for life.

Congress must codify abortion rights to protect women and families.

Today, I sent the following letter to Oregon Governor Kate Brown asking that her office establish a task force to consider end of life issues for those facing dementia under the state’s Death With Dignity Act.

October 23, 2019

Dear Governor Brown:

Last session, legislation was considered in Oregon to extend the Death with Dignity Act to include those facing dementia. Understandably, considering the moral and ethical complexities involved, the legislation did not move forward. I personally support the concept of allowing those facing terminal neurological diseases to end their lives, but also believe more debate is needed.

Therefore, I am writing to ask you to appoint a short-term task force of diverse stakeholders to further study this issue and to make both majority and minority recommendations to your office and the Legislature. Such a task force should consider both care for those suffering from dementia and end of life options.

Dementia, of course, encompasses many different related neurological diseases. Death is always the outcome.

My own theological belief, which I have expressed previously, is that there is no freedom to change the reality of human existence.  Too often we try to pretend there is by tying ourselves to machines and medicines that prolong both life and suffering.  Unimaginable human suffering need not precede eternal life.  Jesus sought to end suffering.

God is a god of love, compassion, and healing.  Death is the natural end of life.  Oregon’s Death With DignityAct is not about the freedom to choose death; it is about recognizing the reality that death comes and that we can take medically appropriate steps to make that death as painless and dignified as possible.

Still, dementia raises unique concerns about how and when decisions can be made.

As different forms of dementia increase, in part, because our population is living longer, it would benefit Oregon to have this conversation in a thoughtful and informed way that includes diverse perspectives.

Sincerely,

Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie

There is renewed national debate over abortion. Let’s begin here: the pro-choice position is consistent with Christian ethics. As the United Church of Christ has maintained for decades, Jesus affirmed the moral agency of women. Those of us who are Christian should follow that example.

Republicans in Alabama and other states have launched a full-throated assault on Roe v Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that guarantees the right of women to seek out safe abortion services. Many of the legislators involved in this effort claim their Christian faith as the driving factor in their push to outlaw abortion.

The Bible offers no clear guidance on abortion. Many opponents of abortion point to vague passages to justify their stance. That’s proof-texting, nothing more.

My own belief is good people can come to different conclusions on this issue. Scripture does argue for respecting human life, but does that include outlawing a medical procedure that terminates the possibility of life when only a collection of small cells is being carried? My answer would be no.

That does not mean I’m entirely comfortable with abortion. My mother was a certified nurse midwife. She spent her career bringing babies into the world, and fighting to improve public health services for women and children. She was personally opposed to abortion but believed women should have the right to make their own decisions about health care. My position is the same.

Returning the United States to the pre-Roe v Wade days would not end abortion. It would merely return abortions to the back allies, where women would risk their health and even their lives. How would that be pro-life?

We should make ethical decisions that make abortion rare and a real informed choice. Abortion rates dropped dramatically during the Obama Administration, as access to family planning, sex education in schools, and contraception expanded. We should also do everything possible to expand support for mothers, families, and children. No one should be forced to have an abortion out of financial concern. That is no real choice at all. Efforts to expand adoption services should also be a priority.

The efforts to ban abortion – by mostly male politicians – is a political effort. Some of those involved do have a real concern for the life of babies, but for most that concern ends once the baby is born. These same politicians vote to slash funding for health care and other services that help ensure children thrive. Many of those opposed to abortion are also opposed to family planning. Their primary concern is control over women, not life.

For those who genuinely see the abortion debate as one regarding life, I would urge that we set aside political attacks on Roe v Wade, and focus on finding common ground. Many people of faith, from all backgrounds, reject the charged and sometimes hateful rhetoric involved with the abortion debate. These folks see the good in family planning and support services for women and children. Let’s refocus our attention in that direction. In the meantime, it is vital that we stand up against laws like the one in Alabama that are so harmful.

 

I am pro-choice not in spite of my faith, but because of it.

My faith supports the moral capacity and the human right to make choices about whether and when to become a parent.

Abortion is a complex, deeply personal decision for a woman to consider if she needs it. Ultimately, this decision should be left to a woman, her family, her faith and her physician — not politics. No matter how you feel about abortion, no one should be denied health care because they can’t afford it.

One of my bottom line beliefs is that people of good faith can come to different conclusions on difficult issues.

Still, as an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, I personally believe the decision to oppose Ballot Measure 106 is an easy one. This dangerous constitutional amendment unfairly discriminates against Oregon families who are struggling with poverty and imposes even greater burdens on them by denying them essential reproductive health care. Measure 106 will reduce health coverage for more than 350,000 Oregonians.

People must not be forced to act contrary to their conscience, nor must they be prevented from acting in accordance to their conscience.  In Christian terms, we recognize that Jesus affirmed the moral agency of women. We should all follow that example.

As a faith leader, I want to help foster a world where all women are trusted to make moral decisions about their bodies and their lives. Where the decision to start a family is thoughtful and planned. Where policymakers and advocates are free to support policies that create a more just and compassionate society. Where lifesaving health care is not blocked by religious special interests.

It is also our responsibility to provide every support system possible to help women and families raise children in our society. No one should be forced into making the decision to have an abortion because of economic factors. We need to move past this political distraction and focus on the health and well-being of children and families.

Our state should reflect a culture of justice and equality where the dignity of all women is acknowledged through policies that support their moral choices. Ballot Measure 106 is a backdoor ban on abortion that takes away a woman’s choices, based on her income or healthcare coverage.

Faith and reproductive freedom are not enemies. According to 2017 research from Pew, nearly two-thirds of Protestants and nearly half of evangelicals say the U.S. Supreme Court should not overturn Roe v Wade. The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has called for reproductive choice since the 1960s.

Roe even sees strong support even from Catholic Americans. More than 60 percent of Catholics believe abortion should be legal; in addition, 6 in 10 voters say abortion can be a moral choice. According to Catholics for Choice, Catholic women access abortion at similar rates as women of other faiths or no faith.

We have a duty to protect the well-being of our families. Voting NO on Measure 106 upholds our shared moral responsibility to ensure that every Oregonian has the full range of reproductive care, by removing obstacles and by providing equitable access for all.

#VaccinesWork: Open Letter to Parents & Families From Faith Leaders | By @RevChuckCurrie & @Sbthistle http://t.co/DK5sx89qhK

— Rev. Chuck Currie (@RevChuckCurrie) February 6, 2015

My latest op-ed in The Huffington Post:

Brittany Maynard made a moral choice http://t.co/A9jphW3YdE

— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) November 3, 2014

News that there is a person possibly with Ebola undergoing treatment in Oregon should not be reason for panic or great concern. Using best public health practices, the Obama Administration and Center for Disease Control and prevention has put into place policies to protect the health of Americans. No one is at risk of Ebola unless you come into contact with body fluids of an infection person. We are all at greater risk of the flu (get a flu shot). Oregonians should offer compassion to the person now under care, we should offer our thoughts and prayers, and we should do the same for those providing treatment. Health care workers deserve every ounce of respect. During this last week of the election campaign it would be a tragic mistake for any politician to use this issue as an attempt to divide Oregonians. Our attention should be focused most on efforts to stop Ebola in Africa where there has been untold human suffering. Faith leaders have been in direct contact with federal officials as this international crisis has unfolded. Fear should not define our reaction.

- Rev. Chuck Currie

SC GOP figure Todd Kincannon wants to execute Ebola victims. He claims a Christian faith but betrays God and seemingly has lost his humanity. His comments, fueled by racism, are a deep embarrassment to South Carolina, a state I love. SC church leaders should take the opportunity to condemn his beliefs and ask that he repent from his sins. We should all seek to show love and compassion for those across the world with Ebola, and not stigmatize those who are ill and suffering. Jesus stood with outcasts, including the sick. He offered healing, justice and reconciliation. There is nothing Christian about Mr. Kincannon's hatred.

SC GOP figure @Todd__Kincannon wants to execute #Ebola victims. He claims a Christian faith but betrays God and seemingly lost his humanity.

— Rev. Chuck Currie (@RevChuckCurrie) October 21, 2014

Oregon voters will consider a ballot measure legalizing the sale and regulation of marijuana. Taxes from the sale of marijuana would be directed to fund public education, mental health and addiction services, and public safety. The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has made no pronouncement on this emerging public policy issue and Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon has yet to release their fall ballot measure guide. As a minister in the United Church of Christ in Oregon, however, I will vote yes on the November measure and encourage other people of faith to consider doing likewise. My vote is predicated on a theological principle that public policy should reflect the common good. The illegalization of marijuana, a drug that is in some ways medically considered to be less harmful then alcohol, has tragically forced many people needlessly into the criminal justice system. It is worth noting that those charged with drug offenses are disproportionally people of color. African-Americans are four times more likely as whites to be arrested for marijuana use even though usage is the same, according to federal data. This has further institutionalized the sin of racism in our society. Like many young people, I smoked marijuana, but unlike youth of color there was little chance that I would have ever faced legal consequences for my actions. My “yes” vote is not without reservations. There is growing medical evidence that smoke from marijuana is dangerous. I am concerned that marijuana use is often idolized in public culture – the same is true for alcohol, however – and thus some seem to promote use among young people under 21. My hope is that with further public education and drug treatment funds that Oregon can do more to reduce unhealthy drug use among young people. Regardless of my concerns, this issue should be treated as a treatment issue and not a law enforcement issue. Obviously, people of good faith will come to different conclusions on this issue. I’ll vote Yes on 91 with the hope that the legalization and regulation of marijuana will reduce crime and violence now associated with the black market linked with the drug, will provide new funding for treatment, and will undermine the systemic racism that fuels our dysfunctional criminal justice system. All of this would benefit the common good of Oregon.

Disclaimer: Views expressed here represent the perspectives of Rev. Currie, as well as reader participants, and may not represent the official views of Pacific University, the United Church of Christ, or any local congregation.

My latest on @HuffingtonPost: #RobinWilliams...and my dad: http://t.co/8wojKYSKgj

— Rev. Chuck Currie (@RevChuckCurrie) August 12, 2014

My latest on The Huffington Post:

"It is particularly important that young people get covered so that no accident or illness leaves them with medical bills and debt that rob them of the opportunity to further their education or one day own a home."

#GetCovered: The Story of Erica Martinez

My latest in The Huffington Post:

"Tea Party Republicans, who so often argue that America is a Christian nation, have turned their back on the most basic of Christian values: concern for those in poverty, compassion, justice, and setting the captives free."

Shutdown Turns Americans Into Captives In Need of Delivery

My latest on The Huffington Post:

The Personalize Your Care Act is legislation the faith community should strongly support. As a minister, I've been in too many ICUs where family members are unclear how their loved one would want to be treated as a life comes to an end.

This Isn't Sarah Palin's Death Panel

Dear Portlanders, 

There’s no question about it:  I love Portland.  It’s been true since moving here as a boy.  My life, in fact, has been dedicated to making our community a better place.  Portland’s rejection this week of fluoridation is far from cause for divorce but it does feed into the lover’s quarrel that is part of my relationship with this special place.

The fact is that fluoridation would have helped protect kids by increasing dental health.  The Clean Water Campaign, fueled by Tea Party money and some odd doctors (like the one who asserts HIV doesn’t cause AIDS), scared the city into believing that fluoride causes cancer and was bad for the environment.  In my 26 years of advocacy and ministry in Portland, I’ve rarely – if ever – seen a campaign distort and lie as often.

In the wake of Portland’s lopsided decision to reject fluoride people across the country are asking if we reject science in the City of Roses – or more plainly: is Portland just anti-science?

The fear based campaign waged by Clean Water Portland was upsetting enough but the often heard statement by those who identify as progressives that putting fluoride in the water violated their personal choice to take fluoride was perhaps more upsetting.  Portland has never been about “me!” but about “us!”  Not so this week.  The common good lost out to a growing libertarianism that in this case put the needs of children last when they should have gone first.  That children should come first is a beadrock principle of my faith.  

Still, this is hardly the first time I’ve been disappointed in the city I love.  We don’t do enough to fight poverty – and North Portland and East Portland are too often ignored, like these parts of our city just don’t count.  Inequity flourishes here and if you are a person of color your chances to succeed diminish greatly.  We launch plans to end homelessness every few years only to watch homelessness grow. 

We say “Keep Portland Weird” because this is a unique community that has produced a special culture a little bit different than much of America and we can laugh at ourselves when watching Portlandia because there are times we’re absurd in funny, yet harmless, ways. 

But at the pot-fueled Clean Water Portland victory party, where reporters say the air was thick with marijuana from smoking activists protesting adding fluoride to the water supply because fluoride was harmful (the irony is worth noting), the city crossed a line from absurd to sad.

Say what you will about Clean Water Portland: Them folks got some pungent medical herb. #fluoride

— Aaron Mesh (@AaronMesh) May 22, 2013

In the end, we still have a dental crisis.  Portland children will still suffer.  Nothing changed this week – our dental crisis didn’t get worse but it could have gotten better but fears and lies and, yes, personal self-interest won over the common good. 

Still, Portland is better than this.  When confronted with difficult questions over taxes, schools, health care, LGBTQ equality and the environment we normally make the moral choice, even if it costs us more in taxes and upsets family, friends and neighbors.  We normally put the common good first when given the opportunity. 

I don’t fault the 60% of Portlanders who voted against fluoride.  Most people don’t pay close attention to these elections and if I heard the city wanted to add chemicals to the water that caused cancer the natural reaction, it seems, would be to vote no.  Those behind Clean Water Portland, however, - the activists and their financial supporterss, including the Tea Party and their allies – knew better and did great damage to Portland by waging a divisive campaign that hurt Portland’s children.  Don’t be surprised to see this coalition reform to try and to reshape Portland in their conservative / libertarian image that is fueled by a distrust for government, other institutions (including institutions of higher learning) and, of course, science. 

That coalition in no ways represents 60% of Portland.  One lost election doesn’t mean progressive Portland is lost.  What it does show is that our work to improve Portland just got more difficult.  Outside Tea Party groups are willing to foot the bill to take on what our city has generally held most dear. 

Fluoride supporters were wrong not to engage the public in an open and transparent process from the start on this issue, instead of trying to move this through the Portland City Council quickly (a move I endorsed).  The backlash is similar to when the Multnomah County passed an ordinance to allow gay marriage without a public process (a move I also endorsed), only to see voters outlaw gay marriage statewide in response.  Government works best when it is transparent.  We ought to learn this lesson.  Back room politics don’t work in Portland. 

Progressives also need to find a way to fight lies in ways that don’t just win campaigns but also strengthen the community.  As a minister, you might think this would be a skill I would have.  But plenty of times I reacted to the lies told in this campaign with more anger than light and that is just as damaging.  Lies shouldn’t be tolerated.  They should be called out.  But we can all find better ways to engage in the public square. 

For me, I love this city too much to give up on it.  I want my kids and the children in my churches to have access to the best public schools and to public health programs that help them thrive.  After all these years, after all these battles, my deep belief is that 90%+ of Portlanders want the same even if we cannot always agree on the ways to get there.  Good people can come to different conclusions on difficult issues.  Until Portland becomes the city it ought to be, I’ll continue my lover’s quarrel and will happily work with people of integrity – people who value truth – even when they disagree with my views.  After all, I’ve been proven wrong before and changed my views when confronted with good arguments based on reason and fact.  Democracy works that way when it is truthful and fair. 

Your neighbor,

Rev. Chuck Currie            

Portland has rarely witnessed a campaign as needlessly divisive as the fight over Measure 26-151, the effort to fluoridate the city’s water supply for the common good. I strongly support this effort and as ballots are out, and as many remain undecided, I want to take this one last chance to explain why.

Portland faces a dental health crisis that impacts our city’s children – and disproportionally impacts communities of color. Just compare Portland – which doesn’t fluoridate the water – and Seattle – which does. In the Portland Metro area, 21% of children suffer from untreated dental decay – a 40% increase over the Seattle area. The CDC calls fluoridation one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century. 

Opponents have questioned whether or not we really face a dental crisis. Some have suggested children can access free dental care at school or community clinics. The reality is quite different. Such care is scare and hard to access. In the social service agencies and churches that I’ve worked in for the past 26 years, I’ve seen plenty of people suffer from lack of adequate dental care. Fluoride won’t solve every problem – we do need a comprehensive solution to all our health care needs – but fluoridation will make a profound difference that is affordable now. 

We also hear a lot about how fluoride is a chemical – a risk we just cannot afford – but fluoride is not, as one person wrote me, a by-product of nuclear waste. We already put chemicals in our water to destroy harmful bacteria. This is no different. Opponents have told me that fluoride will cause neurological damage, kill cats and dogs, and destroy plants. But every other American city that fluoridates is still standing. One of the primary financial backers of the anti-fluoride campaign is a doctor who has said HIV does not cause AIDS and tells parents not to vaccinate their children. Every major medical and dental group in the United States and Oregon has endorsed fluoridation because they know it is safe and beneficial. 

Another funder of the anti-fluoride campaign is an out-of-state Tea Party group. The Tea Party believes strongly in personal choice (except regarding women's health care). We ought to be most concerned with the common good. That should be true on everything from gun control to fluoride. When you make a choice that leaves children in jeopardy what kind of choice is that? What are we saying to our city’s kids?

Portlanders should trust the medical community – along with equity groups – that have advanced fluoridation as a common sense public health measure that will help children and the elderly. Or we can give into fear. I think the world of Portland. We are a good and decent people, and good people can come to different conclusions on difficult issues.

So I hope you vote YES on 26-151, but however you vote I hope you consider the facts and don’t give into the fear, false science and push polls out there.

Rev. Chuck Currie

My latest on The Huffington Post:

"Judy Bright -- a certified nurse midwife, advanced nurse practitioner, public health administrator and my mother -- died before she could take advantage of Obamacare, but as an advocate for public health and someone with a pre-existing condition, she knew the difference it would make for millions of Americans."

Why Judy Bright Supported Obamacare

Portland faith leaders are standing up for 26-151 and Healthy Kids Healthy Portland because "one of our core principles is that the blessings of our community should be felt by all, not just a few." Fluoridation of our water will help our kids and entire city. The numbers have gotten slightly better but we still face a true crisis. Read the arguments in support of 26-151 at

http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/elections/documents/multco_vp_26-151_for_2013-05.pdf.

Today I've joined Sister Simone Campbell, leader of "Nuns on the Bus," in co-authoring an op-ed published in The Hill critical of the budget choices under consideration in Washington:

"As faith leaders, we have spoken out consistently about the moral bankruptcy of Republican federal budget proposals over the last 2 years, and we have supported President Obama’s commitment to protecting the poorest Americans from cuts to crucial programs like food stamps and Medicaid. The president's just released budget, however, falls short of the moral vision many faith leaders have for this country and the president's own ideals as embodied in his second Inaugural Address. While the Obama administration’s 2014 budget has some admirable measures and is far superior to the House GOP plan, it does not go far enough in promoting the common good and protecting the vulnerable."

President's budget doesn't reflect our values.

As a minister and father of eight year old twin daughters, health and dental care is a top concern.  Making sure that low-income children have every advantage should be a top priority of our city and right now that just isn't the case.  Portland, one of only two major cities in the nation without fluoride in the water, is a community where "21% of children suffer from untreated dental decay – that’s forty percent more than fluoridated Seattle Metro."  We can change all that by voting yes on 26-151 this May.  

The CDC calls fluoridation one of the top public health achievements of the last century, and for Portland this is an issue of equity - which is why not only the medical community backs fluoridation but so does the Coalition of Communities of Color. 

I've heard the arguments against fluoridation:  It's a conspiracy backed by big money, it will kill dogs and plants, fluoride is bad for kids, kids can get free dental care instead at public health centers and schools, etc.  You listen to these arguments and cannot help be reminded of those who deny the science that clearly shows a link between human activity and climate change.  The organizers of the campaign to stop fluoride are denying the reality of the scientific consensus that exists on this issue - that fluoride is safe - and arguing that their personal right not to use fluoride trumps the needs of children in our community suffering from a public health crisis.  And where is this free, universal dental care I keep hearing about?  

Good people can come to different conclusions on difficult issues but Portland has been ill served by the official campaign against fluoride which has used outright lies and fear to fuel their campaign.  

Here's a question making the rounds: is there enough media coverage of Kermit Gosnell, the physician charged with murdering babies in an abortion clinic? The answer is no (though as Salon's Irin Carmon notes there was much coverage when the story first broke in 2011). And we need to do everything in our power to make sure that women have access to safe and professional clinics - unlike Gosnell's - that the GOP and their allies are trying to shut down.

Ari Rabin-Havt writes:

Kermit Gosnell, currently on trial for murder, appears to be a monster. There are no adjectives strong enough to describe the horrors that a grand jury says took place at the Women's Medical Society...

The Women's Medical Society's "real business," the grand jury report explicitly states, "was not health; it was profit. There were two primary parts to the operation. By day it was a prescription mill; by night an abortion mill."

To achieve his ends, "Gosnell's approach was simple: keep volume high, expenses low - and break the law. That was his competitive edge."

Conservatives are making the argument that "the reason the media and pro-abortion politicians are ignoring Gosnell's trial is because Gosnell was an abortionist. Seven of his victims were killed after they had been aborted, and one died after she had aborted. Why would people who believe in legalized abortion want to shed negative light on bad things that happen during legalized abortions?"

But these were crimes, not "bad things that happened" within legal structures. What the grand jury established is that Gosnell preyed on poor women, performing illegal abortions in unsanitary conditions. Those on the right have spent ample pixels reciting all the abhorrent practice, but have failed to note the critical component - that the actions they cite are illegal.

Every bit of evidence points to this man's guilt. 

What would make the stituation worse? Forcing women back into the allies and dark rooms of pre-Roe vs. Wade where medical care was not safe or accessible.  That is exactly what the GOP wants:

During the first three months of 2013, legislators in 14 states introduced provisions seeking to ban abortion prior to viability. These bans fall into three categories: measures that would prohibit all abortions, those that would ban abortions after a specified point during the first trimester of pregnancy and those that would block abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization (the equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period, the conventional method physicians use to measure pregnancy). All of these proposals are in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Legislators in 10 states have introduced proposals that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions. In eight states (AL, IA, MS, ND, OK, SC, VA and WA), legislators have proposed defining “personhood” as beginning at conception; if adopted, these measures would ban most, if not all, abortions.

Kermit Gosnell does appear to be a monster, a criminal.

We need to make sure the GOP does not create a market for more people like Kermit Gosnell to take advantage of women seeking professional care.

At the same time, we need to continue to work together - whatever our views on abortion - to reduce the need for abortion by making comprehensive sex education available, by expanding the availability and affordability of contraception, and by expanding funding that support mothers and families that decide to keep children (along with adoption programs).  No one should be forced into deciding to have an abortion because of financial considerations.      

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has long maintained that:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole; …

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

• affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;


• encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;


• upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;


• urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

These are the principles that should guide our thinking in this difficult area.

The Oregon Family Council (OFC) called my office this morning to see if I’d be joining their "Pastors Day at the Capitol." This is where they bring “Tea Party Jesus” to the politicians.

On Facebook, the OFC has stated that the “Oregon Family Council serves over 2,000 Churches and over 40,000 families from across the state who come from a broad spectrum of denominational backgrounds within the Christian community” and that as a 501 ( c ) non profit they “are not affiliated with any political party. Party platforms or points of view play no role whatsoever in our evaluation and recommendations on ballot measures.”

What they fail to mention is they also operate a political action committee that gives 100% of their money to GOP candidates.

What ballot measures have they endorsed in the past? Those that benefit the wealthiest Oregonians at the expense of those Jesus would have called the “least of these.”

Their stances have been opposed by Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, our state’s association of churches and other faith leaders who view public policy through Christian theology and not just a political agenda.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t a Christian organization but rather a political machine to support GOP candidates and causes.

At their "Pastors Day at the Capitol," the OFC claims to be coming to protect religious freedoms under attack:

Our religious freedoms are under direct assault on many fronts today. This year’s event is a must for every pastor and church leader from around the state. Local and national experts on religious liberty will be in attendance to address where we stand in regards to our religious freedoms and how we can preserve these freedoms for future generations.

The most hotly debated issue concerning "religious freedom" has centered around President Obama's health care law - passed with the strong support of the National Council of Churches - and the argument that it infringes on religious liberty has been rejected by nearly all.

Sally Steenland, Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, notes this is part of a national movement that has nothing to do with religious freedom:

…conservatives are setting up religious-liberty caucuses in states across the country. One of the goals of this effort is to pass laws with broad exemptions allowing those who oppose reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and other measures of gay and transgender equality the ability to opt out of antidiscrimination laws and policies without being sued. This is not a new political strategy. It turns out we’ve been down this road before. In fact it is a road that has deep and all-too-familiar ruts from similar fights decades ago.

During the civil rights battle in the 1960s, for example, segregationists used religious justifications to oppose interracial marriage and integration. God created the races to be separate, they argued, which was why he put them on separate continents. To support any kind of race mixing—whether in stores, restaurants, movie theaters, schools, churches, or businesses—was a sin. Civil rights opponents denied they were bigoted. On the contrary, they were simply following biblical teachings and obeying God’s will. Forcing them to abide by civil rights laws would be a grave violation of their conscience and an assault on their religious liberty.

Fortunately, segregationists did not get the religious exemptions they desired.

It is important that people of faith stand up to political groups like the Oregon Family Council and their agenda that in the name of Jesus seeks to shift ever further economic policies so that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, while at the same time they advance proposals to discriminate against people all in the name of religious freedom.

I told the caller I won’t be attending the Oregon Family Council’s "Pastors Day at the Capitol." Instead, I’ll be joining with people of faith to oppose their plans.

In Kansas, where Dr. George Tiller was assassinated at his church by a "pro-life" advocate, a former colleague of his is trying to re-open his clinic.  People of faith should pray that Julie Burkhart is successful.  Women should have the right to make their own reproductive health care decisions. Domestic terrorists should not have the final world.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has long maintained that:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole; …

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

• affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;
• encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;
• upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;
• urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

There are those that would like the public to believe that opposition to abortion is the only Christian position but the United Church of Christ is joined by the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church USA, Presbyterian USA and other faithful Christian denominations in supporting choice.  The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is an interfaith organization many of our churches belong to.

In the end, we should all work toward to goal of reducing the number of abortions.  We need comprehensive sex education in our schools - and our churches - and for contraception to be universally available.  For low income mothers and families we need to make every resource available to make sure that children are healthy and well taken care of.  There's an irony that so many hard core "pro-life" activists oppose aid for children living in poverty.  On this, Christians ought to find common ground.  

A new report shows a drop in the rate of abortions in the United States.  The reason?  Family planning and the availability of contraception. Reducing the number of abortions is a cause most people of faith share but not all people of faith believe women should have access to contraception - some believe such access should be difficult or even illegal.  Such thinking increases the need for abortion.  Groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice work to promote contraception.  We need more voices joining with RCRC.  At the same time, faith communities need to be fighting hard for quality sex education in our public schools and to be providing such education in our churches.  A great resource for churches is the Our Whole Lives curriculum developed by the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universialist Association.    

When my mother, Judy Bright, was diagnosed over a year ago with a terminal form of cancer there seemed only two choices for me: either laugh at the absurdity of it all or cry. I've done both, of course, but decided when she first got sick that I would go to bed each night laughing at something.  

So I've downloaded comedy shows and albums and each night before going to bed - even now, six months after my mother passed - I listen to them still. Laughter became even more important when in my mother's final months I was diagnosed with cancer.  Look, you've got to laugh at that.  

There we were - my mom and me, her dying and me recovering from surgery - sitting side by side taking pain medications and making fun of our predicament.  We certainly weren't going to sit there and feel sorry for ourselves all day, though we did some of that too.

I asked friends on Facebook and elsewhere for recommendations for good comedians I should try out.  Most didn't know how these voices of laughter were and still are sustaining me during a time of grief and transition.  My old friend Jim Hinds suggested I listen to a woman named Tig Notaro. Never heard of her before but I gave her a try and enjoyed her low-key approach to comedy.  I laughed a lot at her stories.

Tig Notaro is in the news a lot now because of a recent set she did just after learning she had cancer - shortly after her mother tragically died and she went through a breakup.

She jokes:  

"God never gives you more than you can handle. Never.  Never.  When you've had it God goes alright, that's it.  I just keep picturing God going: you know what, I think she can take a little more..."

"Why, God, Why?...God is insane...If there at all." 

The set is incredibly honest.  She asks the questions we all ask.  And I cannot help hearing some of my own story in hers.  I don't believe in a God that causes cancer, and I don't believe in a God who puts people in impossible situations to test them.  But these are common understandings of God and sometimes I wish there was a Superman version of God who could fix all our problems but the God I know walks the journey of life with us rather than pre-ordaining a future that we'll simply follow or who will rescue us (except perhaps in ways that we don't understand fully).

Tig Notaro is a gift from God.  She might not know that.  So are all the other comedians who have been my companions these many months of grief and, for me, also recovery.  They lift me up on eagles wings and help me see the truly funny side of the parts of our lives that are out of our control as part of the human experience.  I am grateful to Tig Notaro for sharing her story and for letting me laugh along with it. 

This past January, at age 42, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer.  That's pretty young.  But there is a history of this disease on my mother's side of the family and she insisted that I get screened - a screening that normally wouldn't have occurred for someone my age - and what a good thing she did.  If the cancer had gone a few more years undetected it might not have been treatable.  My mother knew what she was talking about.  She demanded I get screened as she started hospice care for a cancer that went undetected and that would take her life in early April.

September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.  If you have a family history of this cancer it is important to talk with your physican about the risks and whether or not screening is appropriate.  Sometimes it isn't.  Prostate cancer is often a slow growing cancer and treatment in those who are eldery is often worse than the cancer.  But for younger men it can be the difference between life or death.  The difference between being there for your children or not. I was fortunate to get the best treatment possible at Oregon Health Sciences University.

I'm glad I get the chance to be there for my children. 

Todd Akin's recent comments about rape were reprehensible - and so is the GOP platform, modeled after legislation put forth by Akin and Paul Ryan that would ban all abortions...even in the case of rape - but it is clear that Akin isn't alone.

Oregon GOP convention delegate Emily Jarms told a reporter this week that she agreed with Akin and that: 

I'm not a doctor. But I do know that it can be difficult for a woman to conceive in a stressful situation. And so I actually think that a woman conceiving during rape is so completely rare that, I mean, it almost doesn't happen. 

Yep, she's not a doctor.  That much is clear.

Dr. Dean G. Kilpatrick is.  He's a professor and doctor at the Medical University of South Carolina (where my mother attended) and author of a "a 1996 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which estimated that more than 32,000 women experience a rape-related pregnancy each year."

And that figure might be low, notes the The Salt Lake Tribune:

Figures provided by the FBI only count rapes that were reported to police - Kilpatrick says his research shows that at least 80 percent of all rapes go unreported - and they don’t take into account rapes in which the victim was intoxicated or otherwise unable to give consent. Until earlier this year, the FBI defined forcible rape as "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has long maintained that:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole; …

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

• affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;
• encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;
• upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services, and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;
• urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible approaches to sexual behavior.

People of faith must stand up and defend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.  It shouldn't be left up to Todd Akin, Paul Ryan or other politicans.

The decision by Providence Health to stop distributing a guide on low-income health care services jointly published by Street Roots and the Multnomah County Department of Health because the 104-page guide lists Planned Parenthood as one of the services available is deeply disappointing and should cause public agencies to review any contracts with Providence Health and for Oregonians to consider whether or not they want to continue supporting Providence with contributions - or even to seek medical care at Providence facilities.

Providence Health's decision to deny much needed health care information about available resources to vulnerable populations in our community, along with health care workers, does nothing to advance the common good.  Providence Health is operated by the the Sisters of Providence, a Roman Catholic organization, and I certainly respect their opposition to abortion services which is deeply rooted in their faith and is not political.  But Providence Health's decision to stop distributing this guide, which includes information on family planning, will only increase unwanted pregnancies and thus increase the number of abortions.  It will hurt many others who are seeking emergency shelter, housing, alcohol and drug treatment and mental health treatment.

The radicalization of the Roman Catholic Church's position on this issue, along with the lines they have crossed over it into the partisan political arena at the national level, is deeply concerning.  If they are unable to provide medical care to Multnomah County residents in a way that is respectful of the church's values and the medical needs of women and low-income residents there are other hospitals than can.  It is time to review the place of Providence Health in the Portland community. 

It is worth noting that many in the faith community support letting women make their own health care decisions.  The United Church of Christ and the the United Methodist Church are among many Christian denominations, along with interfaith communities, that make up the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.     

As the Portland City Council debates whether or not to put floride in our city's water, I've written a personal letter in support of the plan.  Portland remains one of the few cities not to include fluoride in the water and thus our children suffer with some of the hightest rates of tooth decay in the nation.

Dear Commissioner Leonard and members of the Portland City Council:

 I want to express my personal support for the proposed fluoridation plan.  As a minister and father of eight year old twin daughters, health and dental care is a top concern.  Making sure that low-income children have every advantage should be a top priority of our city and right now that just isn't the case.  As you know, we have terrible rates of dental problems that result in ER visits and long-term issues for children.  We see these problems at rates other cities don't. Fluoridation is a simple step that will help fix a big problem.

On my Facebook page, some people have raised questions about how people who might have medical issues with fluoride - such as allergies or thyroid problems that are impacted apparently by fluoride - might be impacted.  I know that the fluoride levels will be at the HHS recommended levels but I would ask that you address these other issues in your discussions so that people feel Portland's plan is safe moving forward.

Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue.  Commissioner Leonard deserves special thanks.  Fluoridation will be an important part of his legacy and the result will be lower rates of dental problems for Portland's children.  That's a legacy to be proud of.

Best wishes,

Rev. Chuck Currie

 

Mitt Romney's new false ad claiming that President Obama is waging a "war on religion" can only be called sad and pathetic.  President Obama is himself a faithful Christian who has worked across religious lines to promote the common good of our nation.  His health care reform plan has been supported by the National Council of Churches and many religious groups.  Governor Romney - who was pro-choice and pro-birth control until he decided to run for president - should be ashamed of the gutter politics his campaign is playing.  He is using religious faith as a tool to divide Americans.  Someone hoping to be president should have better judgement and ethics.

Many people of faith supported President Obama's health care reform plan and today rejoice in the Supreme Court ruling that largely upholds the Affordable Care Act.  30 million Americans will receive coverage under the president's plan.  Millions already have.  All this moves us closer to the Beloved Community.  President Obama and those leaders in Congress who voted for reform are to be applauded for their commitment to fixing a broken system that has long created a moral crisis in our nation.  The Supreme Court has surprised many with their ruling and they too must be applauded for a wise decision.  There is more to do, of course, to fix the health care system.  But President Obama has moved us further down the path toward universal health care than any other president since Teddy Roosevelt first made the effort.  This has long been a goal of the National Council of Churches and many Christian denominations, along with other interfaith leaders.  Today is a good day for our nation.   

Related: Faith Leaders Celebrate Supreme Court Ruling on Affordable Care Act: “God is smiling down on today’s decision”

Related: Reason rules for Court, but Christians need to continue to advocate for the poorest

GOP leaders in Congress - hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare - are looking to reroute funding for health care to military budgets.  It's a move people of faith must resist.  Politico reports:

If the Supreme Court strikes down the health care reform law, that loss for President Barack Obama could be a win for the Pentagon.

That's because Congress could find itself flush, thanks to billions of dollars that were allocated to fund "Obamacare" that won't be spent if parts of the law are knocked down. And that money would be freed up just as a battle over automatic cuts to the Defense Department budget heats up on the Hill.

He explained that the process wouldn't be hard: Any House committee, likely the armed services or Defense appropriations panels, could send a recommendation to the House Budget Committee for consideration. The deal could move through a reconciliation bill, which is a common tactic to move business along in Congress.

Members of those committees said it's an option they'd consider.

"If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, I would certainly support using the savings to replace the cuts contained in the FY 2013 Obama budget. I believe that most GOP Defense appropriators and House Armed Services Committee members would feel the same way," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla), who sits on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

For Christians, the responsibility on how to respond is clear.  We need to continue to work towards a health care system that covers every American.  It is our moral obligation.  Robbing people of their health care to expand military budgets is contrary to the values of our faith.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion.  Abortion ought to be legal, safe and rare.  It ought to be a real choice that women aren't forced into making because of financial considerations.  As Think Progress notes, the availability of contraception has reduced abortions for women in their 20s.  That's good news.

Between 1990 and 2008, pregnancy and abortion rates for women in their twenties dropped dramatically, a new study revealed today. Pregnancy rates fell by 18 percent, while abortion rates dropped by a third.

One of the biggest influencing factors in this decrease is the growing accessibility, use, and options for birth control. Contraceptive use is the best way to prevent abortions in the U.S. 

It is ironic that those that call themselves pro-life are so often opposed to contraception.  The end result of the Roman Catholic Church's war on contraception will be increased abortions - not to mention HIV/AIDS, other STDs and preventable cancers.

This drop off in the number of abortions in encouraging - and shows that groups like Planned Parenthood are being effective.  People of faith need to step up and speak out in support of contraception at town hall meetings, school board meetings, and at church councils.  Visit the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice to learn more about getting involved. 

The lawsuit announced today by some Roman Catholic organizations isn't supported by all Roman Catholics and certainly not many Christians, including Roman Catholics, who support President Obama's efforts to expand health care opportunities for women and their families.

There is no war against religion. As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I join other people of faith in continuing to applaud the president's efforts. He has, in fact, gone the extra mile to meet religious objections raised by some Roman Catholics and Religious Right evangelicals. But they want more. They want to strip women of the ability to make their own health care decisions. Christians and other good people of faith need to continue to fight these efforts even as we seek reconciliation with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. In a democratic pluralistic society no church gets the final say and no church will be allowed to dictate health policy to women.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Today some Roman Catholics bishops and others will be holding Stand Up for Religious Freedom rallies to oppose President Obama's efforts to expand health care coverage, including contraception, to women.

Portland, Ore. rally organizer Jason Schmidt, echoing Rush Limbaugh, called women who support contraception "sluts" on his Twitter account yesterday.  Are these the type of people the U.S. Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops now associate with?  We should be able to disagree without calling women names or accusing the President falsely of attacking religious liberty.

In fact, religious leaders - including Roman Catholics, Mainline Christians and Evangelical Christians - have offered support for President Obama's efforts.

As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I strongly support the efforts of the White House to protect women from unwanted pregancies, cancer and STDs that contraception can help prevent.  And I condemn religious leaders who associate with those who refer to women as "sluts" because of a disagreement over public policy.

Rick Santorum weighed in with his thoughts on the death of pop singer Whitney Houston tonight.  He called Houston, who apparently died of a prescription drug overdose - possibly combined with alcohol - a " poor example" and said that celebrities with such problems have "a very harmful downstream effect."  It is true that celebrities (including politicians) are seen for good or bad as role models but addiction is a disease that kills the famous and the non famous alike.  I know.  My father died from an overdose of sleeping pills combined with alcohol in 1998.

My understanding is that Huston sought treatment on several occasions.  My father, C. Stephen Currie, did as well.  He was the child of abusive parents who, like he would become, were alcoholics.  His older brother and sister died in circumstances similar to his own years before he would.  Treatment works for many - and we should do everything in our power to expand treatment opportunities because addiction is a disease and not a lifestyle choice, as Senator Santorum implied - but it does not work for all.  How many in-patient programs did my father participate in? How many 12-step meetings?  My father was an award winning television producer and one-time president of NAPTE International.  Like Houston, however, his talent couldn't overcome his disease. 

Calling addicts a poor example misses the point.  There is more that we need to learn about the science of addiction and why some people overcome it and some don't.  Researches tell us it has a lot to do with the brain, genes, formative childhood experiences, and trauma that can be experienced later in life.

Flip answers from politicians trying to score political points don't help.  Personal choice and responsibility plays a role in addiction - no question, and those who face the terror of addiction still must be held accountable for their actions - but if politicians truly want to be helpful they'll advocate for additional research funding in this area and support programs that do help many people recover and go on to lead productive and happy lives.

I don't judge Whitney Houston.  I grieve for her.  In her death, I remember my father's.  In her face, I see the face of God.               

There is a double standard where the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is concerned: you'll start a nuclear political war with a pro-choice Democrat but allow a pro-life Republican to get away with anything.

My latest on The Huffington Post.

President Obama will speak at 9:15 am to announce an accommodation that expands contraception access for women and meets the needs of religious employers with objections to offering coverage.  I've been briefed by senior White House officials and the plan is sound.

Religious employers will not be required to offer insurance plans that cover contraception. But those insurance companies will be required to provide free contraception to women.  Insurance companies would prefer to offer free contraception than to cover the costs of an unwanted pregnancy or diseases that contraception can help prevent.  

This is creative thinking by President Obama and his staff.  Sister Carol Keehan, President of the US Catholic Health Association, and Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards support the compromise.

So do I.

Many Christian denominations - the United Church of Christ included - strongly support contraception and have applauded the president's efforts to expand coverage.  

Any opposition to this new proposal will be partisan politics, pure and simple.

Like many religious leaders, I fully support President Obama's recent decision to expand contraception coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act.  That decision, however, has drawn fierce criticism from Roman Catholic leaders.  Is there room for a compromise.  I think so.

Melissa Rogers of Wake Forest Divinity School wrote this past fall that Hawaii might be a model for a federal law:

In terms of its definition of a “religious employer,” the state of Hawaii’s contraceptive coverage law has some of the same defects as the interim federal rule. But it appears to have taken some noteworthy steps to ensure that employees of objecting religious organizations may readily gain access to affordable coverage of contraceptives. Under Hawaii law, religious employers that decline to cover contraceptives must provide written notification to enrollees disclosing that fact and describing alternate ways for enrollees to access coverage for contraceptive services. Hawaii law also requires health insurers to allow enrollees in a health plan of an objecting religious employer to purchase coverage of contraceptive services directly and to do so at a cost that does not exceed “the enrollee’s pro rata share of the price the group purchaser would have paid for such coverage had the group plan not invoked a religious exemption.” A New York law has similar provisions.

Vice-President Biden, a Roman Catholic, said today that he wants a compromise to be worked out.

Some of the criticism of the new rules has been unfortunate and the rhetoric from New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and others has been heated.  It is unclear if Dolan wants a compromise or a fight.  What the American people want, however, is clear: access to contraceptives as part of health care (and this includes a solid majority of Roman Catholics).  

I'd urge the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to stop their nuclear attack on the White House and to work with the President to find a win-win solution.  Anything less than serious good faith negotiations from the Bishops will force a question about motives.

Why is it, for example, President Obama is coming under fire this election year from Dolan when Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both Roman Catholics, have taken positions in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church on war, immigration, climate change, economics, and aid for those in poverty without as much as a word from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?

As part of President Obama's commitment to increase health care for women and reduce the need for abortion services, the Affordable Care Act - broadly supported by religious organizations in the United States - will require that most insurance companies cover women's preventative services, including contraception, beginning this August.

Churches and other houses of worship are exempt from being required to provide contraception if they have a religious objection (some do, many don't) but some faith-based groups, such as those that receive federal funding and that hire people from various faith backgrounds, will be required over time to follow the same guidelines as other employers.  For some, this has been understandably controversial.  People of good faith sometimes come to different conclusions on difficult issues and President Obama has always respected even those who might occasionally disagree with him.

There is, however, strong support from religious Americans for contraception.  The Guttmacher Institute notes that 98% of Roman Catholic women have used contraception and just recently the Public Research Institute found that "85% of Catholics support expanding access to birth control for women who cannot afford it."  Many Christian and Jewish bodies have official positions that strongly support contraception to help stop unwanted pregnancies, reduce HIV/AIDS and other STDs, and to lower the overall costs of health care for women. Religious leaders from various traditions have praised the President.

As a minister, a husband and a father, I want to thank President Obama and his administration for making sure that the Affordable Care Act works well for women and families.  This is exactly what so many of us in the faith community hoped for when we called on Congress to pass this important legislation.

2/3 Breaking Update: Komen has just issued a statement apologizing and saying they will continue to fund Planned Parenthood.  This is the right move and I applaud their decision.

As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I have supported the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and urged others to do the same.  But with their 100% political - political, not medical - decision to defund Planned Parenthood because the GOP House is conducting a McCarthy-era like witch hunt of the organization, I can no longer support the organization.

This is not a decision I make lightly as my family, like many, has experienced the painful realities of breast cancer.

But I agree 100% with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said today: "Politics has no place in health care. Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care."

Anti-abortion advocates for years have attempted to force Komen from working with Planned Parenthood.  They've won that battle for now.

I still hope Komen will step back from the politics - fire anti-abortion activist Karen Handel - and get back to medicine.  Click here to send them a message. 

And please join other people of faith at the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in continuing the fight for women's health care. 

I still stand with Planned Parenthood:

Portland Stand With Planned Parenthood Rally from The Rev. Chuck Currie on Vimeo.

Update:  I'm glad to learn that Komen Oregon has issued a statement opposing their national organization that reads in part:

Komen Oregon is opposed to the new national Komen community grant eligibility policy. Not only will this decision affect Planned Parenthood, but also any other organization under investigation.  The implications will be far reaching, having an adverse effect on numerous grantees.  Ultimately it will compromise our ability to provide life-saving access to breast cancer screening and treatment for the most vulnerable women.

I hope this local leadership has a positive impact on the national organization.

Message from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

As the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice celebrates the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the war on women rages on, and we who trust women and respect their decisions must renew our commitment to protecting this landmark Supreme Court ruling. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court said, in simple terms, that women have a constitutional right to privacy to make decisions about whether to have an abortion. Because this decision involves moral as well as medical considerations, the Court ruled, a woman has the right to consider her personal circumstances and the dictates of her conscience.

It’s especially important for the pro-faith community to speak out now. For the past year, zealots in Congress and state legislatures – many of whom preach the sanctity of privacy and freedom from government – have relentlessly waged a vicious war on women’s access to health care. More than 1,000 bills were introduced in state legislatures, including the Ohio “heartbeat” bill banning abortion after the 6th or 7th week of gestation, and numerous bills requiring pregnant women to have ultrasounds. In 2011, 92 anti-abortion provisions were enacted – the most in any year since Roe v. Wade was decided!

Click here for more.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

President Obama's health care reforms - which are taking place over a number of years - already are showing results.  As Politico reports, the latest example is that health care has been extended to 2.5 million young people who didn't have coverage before the President's reforms - backed by the National Council of Churches and other faith groups - were passed:

President Obama’s health care reforms have allowed 2.5 million young adults to get medical coverage, according to a new analysis that the Obama administration is set to release Wednesday.

The Obama administration says the dramatic decrease in the number of uninsured young adults is due to the president’s signature health care reforms, reports the AP, which obtained a copy of the analysis.

“The increase in coverage among 19- to 25-year-olds can be directly attributed to the Affordable Care Act’s new dependent coverage provision,” said a draft report from the Health and Human Services Department.

Under the health care reforms, 19- to 25-year-olds can remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until they turn 26, a provision which went into effect last fall. Other provisions in the law to cover uninsured adults don’t kick in until 2014.

The drop in the number of uninsured young adults is 2 1/2 times larger than the decline indicated by previous estimates earlier this year, which showed about 1 million Americans in the age group had gained coverage, reports the wire service.

Health care is a moral issue.  I'm deeply proud of President Obama and the members of Congress who voted for reform.  Eventually over 30 million Americans will receive coverage.  You hear a lot of politicians running for office today on the promise of repealing President Obama's health care reform plan.  That would be a disaster for tens of millions of Americans and would add to our national deficit.

We cannot afford to move our nation backwards.  The health of our people depends of defending President Obama's health care reforms.  This shouldn't be a political issue.  Afterall, many of the reforms passed by President Obama were based on ideas supported both by Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy, and other political leaders of both parties. 

Mitt Romney may support banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk - an extreme position that no other candidacy for the presidency has adopted - but many Christians and other people of faith oppose such efforts, including Mississippi's Initiative 26. 

From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

People throughout the country are taking action to defeat Mississippi Initiative 26, the "personhood" initiative. If passed November 8, it will have far-reaching consequences not only for women and men in Mississippi but for individuals throughout the country. It could be the start of a larger "personhood" agenda. We already know that Nevada, Tennessee, and Florida will have a similar measure on their ballots in 2012.

By legally defining a human being from the moment of fertilization, MS 26 criminalizes abortion without exempting cases of rape, incest, or life of the pregnant woman. As it is written, MS 26 would also prohibit or limit access to vital reproductive health services including hormonal birth control, emergency contraception, fertility treatments and life-saving procedures for women suffering ectopic pregnancies. Personhood USA - the fringe group behind the initiative - moved their efforts to Mississippi after failing to amend the Colorado state constitution in both 2008 and 2010. Colorado voters overwhelmingly rejected the extreme measure, but Personhood USA anticipates favorable results from the conservative southern state.

RCRC is working with the coalition of physicians, infertility advocates and reproductive health organizations that has mobilized to challenge the measure and to spread the word about unforeseen consequences of the anti-choice movement’s overreach. Mississippians for Healthy Families, the political committee formed in response to MS 26, says that the amendment “puts politics above the health and safety of women.”

The "personhood" initiative raises troubling moral issues, regardless of a person’s view of abortion. Whil religions across the spectrum respect and value life and many have an official pro-choice position, RCRC has identified these issues as of deep concern:

• The initiative is one-sided and narrow – it concentrates solely on the fetus and ignores the woman’s life entirely.
• Endowing a fetus with legal rights independent of the pregnant woman could set up a conflict that could place the health and dignity of the woman on a lower level.
• In order to ensure that a being is protected legally from the moment of conception, the state might have to administer a pregnancy test to every woman of childbearing age who was raped.

People of faith are also concerned that this initiative would enact into law specific religious views about "personhood" and in doing so, violate the foundational principle of religious freedom.

You can learn more about the bill at http://votenoon26.org/ 

Here's what Mitt Romeny has to say:

Update: Mississippi Catholic Bishop, Religious Leaders Denounce Personhood Anti-Abortion Bill

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain repeated today his claim that Planned Parenthood was part of a genocidal plot to kill off African-Americans.  It's a terrible lie that has been debunked.  PolitiFact, the independent media group, has said: "Cain’s claim is a ridiculous, cynical play of the race card. We rate it Pants on Fire."  These type of extremist and false statements make candidates like Cain clearly unqualified to hold public office.   

Portland Stand With Planned Parenthood Rally from The Rev. Chuck Currie on Vimeo.

Update: Lying about Planned Parenthood isn't the only problem faced by Cain. Politico reports tonight he was charged with sexual harassment when he headed the National Restaurant Association. The association was apparently forced to make financial payments to at least two women because of Cain's behavior.

Sarah Posner over at Religion Dispatches put up a post last Friday with the concerning headline Dems’ New Faith Outreach Director “Pro-Life” and Against Marriage Equality.  But it turns out The Rev. Derrick Harkins is on the advisory board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice’s (RCRC) National Black Church Initiative (BCI).  RCRC director Carlton Veazey praised the pick and said: "The Obama Administration is to be commended for naming Reverend Harkins to lead faith outreach for the Democratic Party as it heads into the 2012 election cycle."  

On marriage equality, Posner writes: "Harkins told me he opposes same-sex marriage, but hopes for a place of 'common understanding' of a 'vexing question.'" 

But from the tone of the piece and the headline you would have though that Barack Obama had just hired Pat Roberton.

Posner painted an unfair picture of Harkins.  His position on marriage equality is the same as the president's (which for me doesn't go far enough).  Harkins has defended the work of Planned Parenthood and fought against efforts to defund the organization.  

If Posner was hoping to stir up trouble it worked.  The day after her piece ran I had three voice-mail messages waiting when I got off an airplane wanting to know what the president was doing.

Great pro-choice leaders contacted me first-thing Monday morning about joining a sign-on letter to protest the hiring.

Posner created a controversy where none existed.  Harkins by all accounts is a progressive and important leader - particularly in the African-American faith community - but for whatever reason Posner tried to turn him into a caricature of a right-wing evangelical.  

The real fight that religious progressives should be waging is against the GOP's recently passed "Protect Life Act" that, as The Washington Post notes, "would prohibit federal funds from going toward any health care plan that covers abortion services, marking the chamber’s passage of its first major abortion-rights measure since May."

I'll sign a letter about that.  But at least I know it will never become law as long as Barack Obama is president.   

The Oregonian tonight has posted a story about two Canby High School seniors, Hunter Mead and Peter Schultz, who are pushing a proposal to allow their school based health care clinic to provide "birth control in the form of pills, patches, rings or the Depo-Provera shot." 

As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I want to applaud this proposal and thank the students who have put it forward. All of us - parents, teachers, coaches, clergy and others that work with youth - need to teach responsibility and encourage youth to make wise decisions. The wisest decision is not to become sexually active at a young age. But we all know young people don't always make the best decisions. They make mistakes. We should give them the tools to recover from those mistakes - including sex education and contraceptives - that prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Some churches argue that sex education and contraceptives have no place in public schools. That's unwise thinking and, frankly, bad theology. Want to reduce the number of abortions? As the United Church of Christ has noted: "We know that reducing the need for abortion is best accomplished by making birth control and family planning available, accessible and affordable."  

Want to reduce teen pregnancies (and all the studies show abstinence only programs DO NOT work)? Want to lift up children and help young people succeed? Give them the tools to do so.  Providing contraceptives is a moral obligation. 

Frankly, it is frustrating there is still a debate over birth control in the schools.  In 1986, I ran for student body president of Sunset High School on a platform of opening up a Planned Parenthood clinic in our school to provide birth control.  Protecting kids seems as controversial today as it was then.

Let's hope another 25 years doesn't pass before common sense, wisdom and compassion overcome fear and, yes, ignorance.   

This Saturday at 1 pm I'll be joining other Oregonians for a rally and march to celebrate Medicare's 30th birthday.  We'll gather at the North Park Blocks at 1 pm and march to Portland's Skidmore Foundtain.  I hope you'll join me.  

This critical health care program provides quality coverage to some of the most vulnerable Americans but is under attack in Congress today by members of the House and Senate who would rather continue tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans - including tax deductions for corporate jets - than help those who are fighting cancer and other diseases, many preventable with treatment.

Jobs with Justice is hosting Saturday's event and I'm honored to be among the speakers.  At the Skidmore Fountain there will be cake to celebrate the 30th years of Medicare's important work.

For those on Facebook there is a page where you can RSVP.  Otherwise, just show up!

Religious leaders across the country - myself included - have been telling Congress and the President that any deal on the deficit and debt ceiling most protect Medicare and other important programs that help people lift themselves out of poverty and care for those who are unable to care for themselves. 

As The New York Times noted in an editorial, health care for the poorest Americans is under attack by Congressional republicans and President Obama must stand-up to them or the consequences will be grave:

The poor and disabled people who rely on Medicaid to pay their medical bills could be in grave jeopardy in this sour I’ve-got-mine political climate.

Older Americans, a potent voting bloc, have made clear that they won’t stand for serious changes in Medicare. Medicaid, however, provides health insurance for the most vulnerable, who have far less political clout.

There is no doubt that Medicaid — a joint federal-state program — has to be cut substantially in future decades to help curb federal deficits. For cash-strapped states, program cuts may be necessary right now. But in reducing spending, government needs to ensure any changes will not cause undue harm to millions.

As Medicaid currently works, the federal government sets minimum requirements for eligibility and for services that must be covered; states can expand on services and include more people. The federal government is required to pay from half to three-quarters of the cost, depending on the wealth of a state’s population. In tough economic times, Medicaid enrollments typically soar as government revenues shrink, adding budget woes.

House Republicans led by Paul Ryan want to turn Medicaid into a federal block grant program that would grow slowly and shift more costs to states and patients. Their plan would save $771 billion over a decade. Mr. Ryan also wants to repeal a big expansion of Medicaid required by the health care reforms. All told, he would cut $1.4 trillion over 10 years — roughly a third of the more than $4 trillion in projected federal spending in that period.  

President Obama, who would retain the Medicaid expansion, has proposed a cut of $100 billion, less than 2.5 percent of projected federal spending, which would be much more manageable, though a lot will depend on how it is carried out. The great danger in proposing $100 billion in cuts at the start is that Republicans will take that as an opening bid that can be negotiated upward, toward the unreasonable Ryan-level cuts the House has already approved.

The best route to savings — already embodied in the reform law — is to make the health care system more efficient over all so that costs are reduced for Medicaid, Medicare and private insurers as well. Various pilot programs to reduce costs might be speeded up, and a greater effort could be made to rein in malpractice costs.

The Half in Ten Campaign - a project supported by the United Church of Christ, the Center for American Progress, and others - is calling on President Obama to protect programs for those living in poverty during budget negotiations:

In these next few weeks, urge the President to stand firm on one important principle as negotiators finalize a deficit reduction plan: protect programs for low-income families and individuals and ensure that deficit reduction does not increase poverty.

Major bipartisan deficit reduction plans in recent decades have met this basic standard. In fact, all of the deficit reduction packages enacted in the 1990s not only brought down the deficit, but also reduced poverty in America. Other deficit reduction measures during this time period also excluded programs supporting low-income families from automatic budget cuts on the principle that low-income Americans should be protected.

Getting our fiscal house in order need not, and should not, mean we do so in a way that increases poverty, hardship, and inequality while financing additional tax breaks for the wealthy.

Call or email the President's office and ask him to oppose harmful cuts to low-income programs and stand by his support of fair increases in revenues to fight reckless cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other important services. You can contact the White House Comment Line today toll free at 1-888-245-0215. 

With critical services for our most vulnerable hanging in the balance, your voice on this issue could not be more needed or important during this time.

Click here to send a message to President Obama.

A new study was released this week that showed broad support across religious lines for the right of women to make their own health care decisions - including over abortion - with only white evangelical Christians showing strong opposition.

Public Religion Research Institute reports:

A solid majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all (19%) or most (37%) cases, compared to 4-in-10 who say it should be illegal in all (14%) or most (26%) cases.

• With the exception of white evangelical Protestants, majorities of all major religious groups say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
• A majority of Americans across the political spectrum say it is more socially acceptable today to be “pro-choice” rather than “pro-life.”

Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans say that at least some health care professionals in their communities should provide legal abortions.

• With the exception of white evangelical Protestants and Latino Catholics, majorities of all major religious groups agree that at least some health care professionals in their community should provide legal abortions.
• Americans who live in large metropolitan areas are much more likely than those who live in rural communities to say legal abortion services should be available in their community (67% vs. 39% respectively).

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice issued a statement on these findings that read in part:

Washington, DC - The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) applauds the findings of a major new survey released today that shows strong support for access to abortion among Millennials (those ages 18-29), mainline white Protestants, African American church-goers, and other religious groups.  The survey confirms RCRC’s position that most Americans who are affiliated with a religious tradition support access to legal abortion. The Public Religion Research Institute of Washington, DC, conducted the survey, which it describes as the largest national public opinion survey on the influence of religion and moral values on the abortion issue.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) is the national alliance of denominations and religiously affiliated organizations from 15 traditions, including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, two agencies of the United Methodist Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements of Judaism, Catholics for Choice, and Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, Ethical Culture and other groups. 

However, the conclusion of the Millennials, Religion and Abortion Survey - that young people are conflicted about the morality of abortion – differs from our experience with young people on more than 60 campuses, through our Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom program. Millennials have grown up in the most diverse and pluralistic society in America’s history and recognize and respect differing moral views about abortion, which is very different from saying they are conflicted about abortion. In our experience, Millennials support access to abortion services in large part because they believe that individuals should be able to obtain the health and medical services that they themselves determine they need  – based on their religious and moral values, conscience and circumstances. In a significant finding, 59% of Millennials surveyed said they think that “abortion can be the most responsible decision a woman can make in certain circumstances.” 

The survey findings indicates that clergy and religious leaders have a responsibility to speak up in support of women who have had an abortion and to provide assurance that abortion is not a sin and is not condemned or even mentioned in the Bible. Seventy-eight percent of women having an abortion have a religious affiliation, according to The Guttmacher Institute, a public policy and research organization.

Other important findings include:

• Millennials are significantly more likely than the general public to say that at least some health care professionals in their community should provide legal abortions (68% v. 58%)
• 86% of Millennials support abortion when the health of the woman is at risk (in addition to supporting abortion when the woman’s life is in danger)

Click here to learn more about the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Common sense from the American people over the issue of abortion:

Americans are growing tired of the abortion debate and want to move on to a broader discussion about reproductive health, a new survey by a Democratic polling firm finds.

The poll, conducted by Lake Partners, found that Americans feel Congress has focused too much on abortion and not enough on things like preventive care, reproductive health and expanding access to birth control.

When presented with the following statement, 79 percent of adults agreed, with 49 percent agreeing strongly:

“While the current political debate focuses too much on abortion, there is a much broader discussion that needs to happen around reproductive health. We may have different opinions about abortion, so rather than continuing to argue about this one issue, our elected officials should focus on the broader context like providing greater access to birth control, teaching comprehensive sex education and improving maternal health and childbirth outcomes. These are issues that will allow us to come together.”

Full story.