Rocks and Hard Places for Gay Christians this Christmas

Scott Swenson

During this Holy Season for every faith, many are up in arms over a prayer Rick Warren will offer, some planning to disrupt it, which will only cede the moral authority progressives now have.

I pray. Everyday. Sometimes several times. This week begins a twelve day feast of the birth of Christ in my faith tradition, and it happens amidst other celebrations of light in the darkness in every faith. It is a good time to remember that light starts within each of us and spreads as we respect it in ourselves and others, no matter how challenging that may be. Some might say that it is in dark moments of challenge that we are meant to discover the light.

I’m also gay, so this holiday season has been consumed with a roller coaster of emotion and rage at the selection of Pastor Rick Warren to lead a prayer at Barack Obama’s inauguration, where the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery will also pray.

Until January 20th, I will be praying that those of us who disagree with the selection of Rick Warren will not compound the challenges we face on our journey toward equality by being disrespectful, booing during prayer, or otherwise thinking that this moment is anything but what Obama intended — modeling civility from a position of strength and conviction in his own progressive ideas about sexual and reproductive health and rights. I will pray that we see through the darkness toward the light within each of us, the light that allows us to see more compassionately those we don’t  understand or definitely disagree with, yes, even those who would deny our very existence. In demanding equality we are claiming our right to journey through life on our own terms. To achieve equality we must not deny others in our effort to be recognized.

Obama is not moving toward Rick Warren and social conservatives as Congressional Democrats have attempted to do by hushing progressives clamoring for changes to many policies on sexual and reproductive health. Instead Obama demonstrates that progressive ideas on gay issues, sex ed, contraception and abortion are moral choices.  He invites Warren to join him, even while disagreeing on gay rights and abortion, to find new common ground.  When news of the Warren invitation first broke, I noted that the challenge was now Warren’s to lead hard-right social conservatives past partisanship and bitter divide that has characterized gridlock in Washington for much of the past 30 years, to a new place of civility that Obama is attempting to create in our politics. It appears Warren is taking some initial steps in Obama’s direction.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

These are generational changes we are participating in and they are being led and defined by arguably the most progressive new administration in history. Obama recognizes that to get movement on the policies we must change, our democracy requires change as well — this was the premise of his campaign — and it is the surest path toward full equality strategically. Democracy is not designed to produce instant reward, does not offer immediate gratification, is not about wholesale change. It is messy, takes time and most importantly requires we understand that we must do the careful, respectful work of education to bring people who fear change along on our journey.

Anthony B. Pinn has a tremendous piece today about this at Religion Dispatches, in which he concludes:

It is unreasonable to think President-elect Obama can or should
resolve the conflict over religiously informed opinions when this very
task has befuddled religious leaders for centuries. Obama will do well
if he can help us make the tension between religious worldviews
creative and an arena for fruitful exchange. What we can hope for is
management of and respect for our religious differences and an attempt
to map out ways to harness the energy of our shared quest for life
meaning, for a greater sense of who, what, when, and where we are. And,
in this way we might tame the more harmful aspects of our religious and
theological orientations. Will we achieve this taming of our more
harmful theologically-fueled tendencies…not likely, but it’s a task
worth the effort regardless of the outcome.

Obama is making
this effort, and the measure of his success isn’t the contentment of
any particular group; but the ability of each group to voice its
discontent, its disagreement and push a national conversation forward.
Yes, dislike his selection for the invocation, and voice this dislike;
but recognize that Obama’s call for common ground will mean not always
getting what you want.

 

As a community gay people are tired of waiting, of not getting the equality, not that we want as Pinn writes, but that we deserve, as Americans, and most importantly as children of God (for believers). 

Are we more tired than women? More tired than African Americans? More tired than the current wave of brown immigrants coming to this nation of immigrants? More tired than under-educated or economically disadvantaged whites? Are we more tired than the many religions that make up the most diverse and religious country on the planet or non-believers who are continually disregarded when someone says "this is a Christian nation" and whose faiths will not be represented at the inauguration prayers?

Those who have held the moral authority, as gay people do now, have always been long-suffering, non-violent and respectful. The shoulders we stand on in this moment understood that when caught between rocks and hard places, it is the slow erosion of trickling water that softens the hard edges. They left the throwing of rocks, the verbal and literal stoning, the torrent of the fire hoses spraying water against flesh, the beating, bashing and lynching to those on the wrong side of history. The glacial pace of change is frustrating and every group excluded from the promise of equality in America sees that slow pace as our nation’s tragic flaw.  It is also what allows each of us to fall in love with America as each generation works to fulfill her promise in new ways and thus remain a light of freedom to many suffering around the world.

That we might be entering a time when it is possible for us all, as Americans, to solve intractable problems of government with less animosity is a sign of hope.

There are iconic moments in history that have defined every struggle for equality. But if we who disagree with Warren disrupt a prayer, and specifically a prayer at the inaugural of the first African-American President in American history, the iconic moment captured on that historic day will cede moral high ground and goodwill progressives now hold. The gay community continues to deal with its own racial struggles within our community and black gay men and women understand the challenges in ways many white gays do not. To act out during a prayer will not help our cause where we most need the help, on gay issues and HIV/AIDS, within black churches.

Students in Georgia listened to George Wallace standing in the doorway, faced threats and derision, but quietly worked for change and won their rights. They sat at lunch counters where they were not welcome, quietly and simply attempting to order food from people who denied their humanity. Their quiet courage and presence won their rights. People marched and sang wishing President Kennedy would do more, some demanding it, many vocally frustrated by the political reality of the times. Women marched for decades just to be able to vote and then to have bodily autonomy and still await equal pay. Poor people of all races have always struggled to be heard, respected, educated, and employed — and during these tough economic times more iconic images of disparity between rich and poor are being etched in our minds.

Those historic and iconic images changed hearts and minds and led us to this historic election and inauguration.  We who disagree with Warren can listen respectfully for 90 seconds without creating a negative iconic image of people disrupting prayer — and we can continue to fight strategically for the rights that are ours by birth.  We risk too much moral authority — the same that Obama is using to reach out to Warren — by giving in to rage and emotion and disrupting a solemn moment.  We can create positive iconic images in keeping with the respectful and non-violent traditions of all civil rights movements by listening to those we disagree with, and standing firm for our lives and loves with every other long-suffering movement for equality, and in doing so, support Barack Obama in his efforts to bring real and lasting change to our democracy, leading toward the full equality we all seek. 

The promise of nature in winter is that light will return even in the face of the darkest day. It is the same promise that every faith tells different stories to teach at this time of year. In many ways, it is the genius and promise of America — that in the face of darkness we can choose either to add to it, or instead find light within and with quiet strength and grace shine our light in a way that others will see and greet, and be thankful for giving us the opportunity to learn again that there is light within each of us. That we can choose differently. That in choosing to act from strength and light, we create the change we seek.

 

 

Investigations Media

The ‘HUSH’ Documentary: Another Secret Recording Inside an Abortion Clinic

Sharona Coutts

HUSH relies almost exclusively on interviews with renowned anti-choice “experts” whose work has been discredited. They trot out many of the worn theories that have been rejected by medical and public health experts. The innovation of HUSH, however, is that it has reframed these discredited ideas within the construct of a conspiracy theory.

Another day, another secret recording made in an abortion clinic.

At least, that’s the very strong impression given by some of the scenes contained within the documentary film HUSH, which premiered late last year and is currently making the rounds of film festivals and anti-choice conferences in the United States and internationally, including the National Right to Life Convention that took place in Virginia last month.

The film is the creation of Mighty Motion Pictures and Canadian reporter Punam Kumar Gill, who says in the film that she is pro-choice, a “product of feminism.” It purports to tell the story of “one woman,” Gill, who “investigates the untold effects of abortion on women’s health.”

HUSH—which claims in the film’s credits to have received support from the Canadian government—attempts to cast itself as neither pro-choice nor “pro-life,” but simply “pro-information.” The producers insist throughout the film, in their publicity materials, and in private emails seen by Rewire that their film is objective and balanced.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

That’s how they pitched it to Dr. David Grimes, a highly respected OB-GYN and a clinical professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, who agreed to do on-camera interviews for the film. Grimes now says the producers and reporter misled him about their intentions.

“There was no balance,” Grimes told Rewire. “It’s a hatchet job. It’s obvious.”

Indeed, HUSH relies almost exclusively on interviews with renowned anti-choice “experts” whose work has been discredited, many of whom are featured in Rewire‘s gallery of False Witnesses. They trot out many of the worn theories that have been rejected by medical and public health experts—namely, that abortion is linked to a host of grave physical and mental health threats, “like breast cancer, premature birth, and psychological damage.”

The innovation of HUSH, however, is that it has reframed these discredited ideas within the construct of a conspiracy theory.

When Anti-Choice “Science” Goes Conspiracy Theory

As a piece of propaganda, the use of the conspiracy theory has the advantage of removing the debate over abortion’s safety from the realm of logic. In HUSH‘s topsy-turvy world, the medical establishment becomes the scare-quoted “Medical Establishment,” and the more distinguished or authoritative a person or organization, the more suspect they become.

For reasons that remain murky, the film’s thesis is that the world’s leading reproductive and health organizations—including the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the World Health Organization, along with all of their staff, contractors, and affiliated experts—have been hiding information about the risks of abortion.

This is most apparent when the reporter, Gill, tells the viewers that “if women have the right to abortion, they should also have the right to know” about the risks she believes she has identified.

Later, the film shows graphics highlighting the states that have various informed consent laws—some of which are literally called “A Woman’s Right to Know” acts—that force providers to give patients false information about the safety of abortion. Rather than concluding that the authority of the state has been used to mandate that doctors provide medically unsound “counseling” using the very junk science that Gill presents throughout the film, she hews to the back-to-front logic of all conspiracy theories. In her view, the existence of these laws shows that the risks are real, but that the faceless, nameless “they” still won’t let women in on the their deadly secrets.

In Gill’s world, the unwillingness of organizations to speak with her becomes evidence that they are hiding something.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists tells Gill that it won’t fulfill her requests by giving her an interview because the science is settled; Gill sees this as a sign of conspiracy.

“This is where I started to feel equally suspicious of those denying any link,” Gill tells the viewer, her voice floating over inky footage of the U.S. Capitol at night. Lights from the Capitol dance on the velvety surface of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and Gill confides: “I felt like I was digging into something much deeper and darker.”

A comical scene ensues where Gill is astonished to find that turning up with a film crew on the grounds of the National Cancer Institute does not suddenly persuade it to grant her an interview with one of its experts.

“What was going on here?” says Gill in her voiceover. “It was like they really didn’t want any questions being asked.”

In fact, the National Cancer Institute had replied to Gill’s multiple requests with links to its website, which contains the conclusive studies that have long since dispelled the notion that any link exists between abortion and breast cancer. The film shows footage of those emails.

Furthermore, Grimes provided Rewire with copies of emails he had exchanged with the film’s producers during its production, in which he gave them citations to relevant studies and warned them that the work of the anti-choice “experts” they had approached had been thoroughly debunked.

After seeing the film, Grimes emailed the producers inquiring why they hadn’t simply asked him to connect them with additional experts.

“Had you truly wanted more pro-choice researchers to speak to these issues, I could have named scores of colleagues from the membership of the Society for Family Planning and Physicians for Reproductive Health who would have been happy to help,” Grimes wrote in a note he shared with Rewire. “You did not ask. That some organizations like the National Cancer Institute did not want to take part in your film in no way implies a reluctance on the part of the broader medical community to speak about abortion research.”

It seems that Gill—whose online biographies give no indication that she is a scientist—would not have been satisfied in hearing about existing research. She tells the viewers that, in her view, “more study is needed to determine the extent of the abortion-breast cancer link,” and concludes that “to entirely deny the connection is ludicrous.”

In an interview with Rewire, Grimes noted that doing such research would be viewed as unethical by reputable scientists.

“That issue is settled, and we should not waste limited resources that should be directed to urgent, unanswered questions, such as the cause of endometriosis and racial disparities in gynecologic cancers,” he said.

Grimes made his dissatisfaction clear to the producers. He wrote to them: “My inference after viewing the film is that you are suggesting a large international conspiracy of silence on the part of major medical and public health organizations, the motivation for which is not specified.”

The corollary to the suspicion cast over the most reputable research and representative bodies is that the film transforms the marginal status of the anti-choice “experts” into a boon.

Seen through HUSH‘s conspiracy theory lens, the fact that the work of people like Priscilla Coleman, David Reardon, and Angela Lanfranchi is rejected by the medical establishment becomes proof not of the unsoundness of their ideas, but rather that a conspiracy is afoot to silence them.

Instead of presenting this small but vociferous group of discredited activists as outliers—shunned because their theories have no scientific basis, or because they lack any credentials relevant to reproductive or mental health, or because they have repeatedly mischaracterized data—HUSH paints them as whistle-blowing renegades determined to set the truth free.

A tearful Lanfranchi recounts the story of patients who came to her with aggressive breast cancer in their 30s. Lanfranchi says she strove to understand “why this was happening,” and realized that each of these young women had had abortions, which she then concluded had caused their cancer. Lanfranchi said her hopes that the public would learn of this risk were dashed over time.

“Over the years I’ve realized that, no, it didn’t matter how many studies there were,” she tells viewers. “That information was not going to get out.”

Joel Brind says that he has worked with a colleague whom he says he later discovered was pro-choice, but that their views on abortion never came up. “This is about science,” he tells Gill. “This is about the effect on women and whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Period.”

Gill asks both Lanfranchi and Brind whether they are trying to “stop abortion,” or whether they “want abortion to go away.” Both answer that all they want is for women to be informed when they exercise their choice.

The film makes no mention of the fact that both have been anti-choice activists for decades; they have each testified in support of anti-choice laws in both legislative and judicial proceedings, and both have participated in the extreme right-wing, anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ World Congress of Families.

To the extent that HUSH acknowledges these activists’ bias, it is couched in a softer light that is linked, implicitly, to their religious views—a reality raised by Grimes in his on-camera interview, in which he notes, accurately, that the anti-choice “intellectuals” often lack the relevant medical or scientific qualifications to do the type of work they purport to do, but that they do tend to share religious convictions that lead them to oppose abortion and contraception.

That allows the producers to imply that the False Witnesses are perhaps victims of discrimination; to suggest that their work is being discounted because of the activists’ religious beliefs, and not because the work itself has been thoroughly debunked. Play the ball, not the man, appears to be the producers’ plea.

It’s a conspiracy theory twilight zone: where medical groups withhold information for reasons so cloudy that they cannot be articulated, but where people who have for years worn their beliefs on their sleeves cannot be evaluated with those political views in mind.

After asserting that she is, herself, pro-choice, Gill says she “finds validity” in the claims of the anti-choice advocates, and that she finds it “sickening” that the “media and health organizations have spent their energies closing the case and vilifying those who advocate in favor of the link, instead of investigating any and all reasons why breast cancer rates among young women have increased and women are dying.”

The producer, Joses Martin, did not answer Rewire’s questions about the experts he and his team had selected, other than to say, “We are very proud of the balanced approach that we’ve taken in this documentary that is neither anti-abortion nor pro-abortion.”

Another Instance of Secret Recordings Made in Abortion Clinics

What troubles Grimes most about the film is not so much that he was cast as the face of an international conspiracy by virtue of being the sole pro-choice physician to appear on camera, but that he may be associated with people who appear to have made secret recordings in at least one abortion clinic.

The footage and audio in question have been heavily edited, and it is difficult to discern what is real from what has been staged or spliced to give certain effects.

Early in the film, Gill is shown standing in the entry path to what the producers identify as a “Seattle abortion clinic.” As she makes her way inside, the footage swaps to guerilla-style, hidden camera shots, which capture wall artwork that appears in some Planned Parenthood clinics. Viewers see Gill’s face in the waiting room, as well as blurs of other people there. The film then swaps to audio recordings without any video footage. Gill can be heard posing as a patient, receiving counseling from a woman who is identified as a “health center manager.” This audio is used twice more during the film.

In Washington state, it is a crime to make audio or video recordings of people without their consent. Similar laws are in place in California, Florida, and Maryland, states where David Daleiden and his co-defendants from the Center for Medical Progress made their surreptitious videos of Planned Parenthood employees and members of the National Abortion Federation.

Grimes asked the producers whether they had obtained permission to make any of those recordings; Rewire asked the producers whether the recordings were in fact made in Seattle.

The producer, Joses Martin, replied to Grimes that he would “not be disclosing the name or location of the clinic or the name of the individual recorded to yourself or anyone else.”

“We have kept this information undisclosed and private both in the film and out of the film to not bring any undue burden on them. We’re certainly not implicating anyone involved of wrong doings, as was the goal in the Center For Medical Progress case,” Martin wrote in an email shared with Rewire.

In an email to Rewire, Martin did not answer our specific questions about the recordings, but asserted, “We did not break any laws in the gathering of our footage.”

Planned Parenthood had no comment on whether the crew had obtained consent to film inside its clinics, or whether Gill had misrepresented herself throughout her conversation with the counselor. Nor did the organization comment on the increasing use of secret recordings by anti-choice activists within its clinics. In a federal suit, Planned Parenthood has sued Daleiden for breaches of similar laws in California, Florida, and Maryland.

The branch of the Canadian government that the producers credited with supporting the film was less sanguine when informed about the apparent use of secret recordings made in American abortion clinics.

The film’s credits say that it was produced “with the assistance of the Government of Alberta, Alberta Media Fund,” but when Rewire contacted that Canadian province to learn why it had funded a piece of anti-choice propaganda, a spokesperson distanced the fund from the film.

“We have entered into conversations with the production company but we do not at this point have a formal agreement in place, and we were not aware that the production had been completed,” the spokesperson said. “We’re not able to comment on any funding because to date we have not funded the project. Thank you for bringing the use of our logo to our attention and we’ll be in touch with the producers to discuss.” The producers did not reply to Rewire’s question about their use of the logo.

Ironically, while the producer, Martin, did reply to emails from both Grimes and Rewire (albeit without answering specific questions), the reporter, Gill, remained silent. She never answered questions about what she knew about the backgrounds of the False Witnesses to whose work she lent such credence. She didn’t respond to our questions about whether she obtained permission to record video or audio within abortion clinics, or where those clinics were located. And she didn’t reply to our questions about the nature of her relationship with the extreme anti-choice group Live Action, who also received a credit at the end of the film.

To a reporter such as Gill, such silence would surely have been deeply suspicious.

Rewire Investigative Reporter, Amy Littlefield, contributed to this report. 

News Law and Policy

Seattle Becomes Fourth U.S. City to Outlaw ‘Conversion Therapy’

Nicole Knight

The American Psychological Association has warned of risks from the so-called treatment, including depression, anxiety, self hatred, and self-destructive behavior. Major medical organizations have rejected the harmful practice.

The Seattle City Council this week banned so-called conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth, making it the latest in a string of cities and states to outlaw the harmful and unscientific practice.

The “conversion therapy” ban passed Monday in a unanimous vote.

“Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer or transgender is not an illness,” said Lorena González, the councilperson who sponsored the new ordinance, as the Stranger reported. “Nor is it something that needs a cure.”

“Conversion therapy” attempts to change a young LGBTQ person’s sexual orientation or gender identity to cisgender or “straight.” Major medical and health-care organizations, such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have rejected the controversial practice.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

The American Psychological Association has warned of risks from the so-called treatment, including depression, anxiety, self hatred, and self-destructive behavior.

Cincinnati, Miami Beach, and Washington, D.C. already ban “conversion therapy,” as do states including California, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois, New York, and Vermont, Seattle officials said in a statement.

The Seattle ordinance applies to licensed providers treating youths younger than 18. Violators face fines of up to $1,000.

The city “has taken a bold step to save children’s lives, and its children have received a clear message that they were born perfect,” said Carolyn Reyes, youth policy counsel with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). The NCLR’s #BornPerfect campaign seeks to end “conversion therapy” nationwide by 2019 through new laws, court action, and awareness campaigns.

Although LGBTQ rights groups in Washington state had pushed for statewide legislation to outlaw “conversion therapy,” Monisha Harrell, with the LGBTQ advocacy group Equal Rights Washington, cheered the city ordinance. She said the group would redouble its efforts to enact a statewide ban.

The Obama administration last year called for an end to “conversion therapy,” throwing its support behind national legislation named for Leelah Alcorn. Alcorn, a 17-year-old transgender woman who killed herself in 2014, wrote in a suicide note that religious therapists tried to force her identify as a boy, as Rewire reported.

The Republican Party this summer nearly made support for the harmful practice part of its party platform, as Time reported.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins had advocated for strong language backing “conversion therapy,” but watered down his amendment after conferring Republican National Committee officials. The party finally agreed to: “We support the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children.”

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!