Where Are The Women in Obama’s Faith-Based Advisory Council?


The Obama Administration’s Office
of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships announced an Advisory Council
and four key priorities this week.  In addition to addressing poverty
and promoting interfaith dialogue, the priorities consider "how we
support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the
need for abortion," and call for "encouraging responsible fatherhood."   

Notice how women are paired with children
and pregnancy/abortion concerns.  Men apparently only need help with
fatherhood.  This gendered pairing strikes me as paternalistic and misguided.  

For one thing, the issue of abortion
isn’t just about teens and unwed mothers.  Married women have abortions,
too.  Many women who make a moral decision to have an abortion do so
with a male partner’s support — does that fit the Advisory Council’s
definition of responsible fatherhood?  As the Religious Institute says in our Open Letter on Abortion as a Moral Decision, 

    We affirm women as moral agents
    who have the capacity, right and responsibility to make the decision
    as to whether or not abortion is justified in their specific circumstances.
    That decision is best made when it includes a well-informed conscience,
    serious reflection, insights from her faith and values, and consultation
    with a caring partner, family members, and spiritual counselor. Men
    have a moral obligation to acknowledge and support women’s decision-making.

Also, reducing the need for abortion requires
more than addressing teen pregnancy.  I pray the members
of the Council will not set up roadblocks to abortion access as part
of a "reduction" strategy.  I pray, rather, that they agree
that one way to ensure that any woman, teenage or older, will not face
the moral decision to have an abortion is to reduce unintentional pregnancies. 
I’m not the first to make this observation and won’t be the
last. 

"Addressing teen pregnancy"
does not automatically translate into effective strategies to reduce
teen pregnancy.  Young women and men need comprehensive sexuality education
and access to contraception.  So do adults, both single and married.

As a faith-based initiative, the new
office must also recognize that "faith matters" when it comes to
delaying mature sexual behaviors, which can affect teen pregnancy rates. 
I am not talking about abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.  We know they don’t work
Active, consistent involvement in a faith community does. 

As a 2003 study by the Christian Community found "A
strong connection to adults in the congregation; the provision of information
on how to make sexual decisions; and the portrayal of sex in a healthy
and positive way are strong contributing factors to these teens who
were the least likely in the study to have had intercourse…Clearly
caring adults in the congregation have a significant role to play." 
Teens need attentive leaders, teachers and parents to help them make
responsible moral decisions. They need positive examples of good sexual
decision-making (something a faith community can offer), and accurate
information presented in the context of their faith values.

So far, only four women have been named
to the President’s Advisory Council.  Four out of 15 spots doesn’t cut it so long as women make up
half the population and are central to the Council’s stated priorities. 
Ten more members are still to be appointed; perhaps the Obama administration
will appoint female role models for the young women they are trying
to support. 

How about a woman who is a member of
the clergy, or a feminist who has worked her whole life in faith communities
to support women and girls?  Now that would be a role model for young
women of faith! 

When these women are invited to participate
on the Council, I hope they will suggest that President Obama edit the
four priorities to read: "encourage responsible sexual decision-making"
(by men and women) and "reduce teen pregnancy through comprehensive
sexuality education."  These revisions will help us move beyond gendered
priorities and put the focus on healthy sexuality. Those seem to fit
better – scientifically, practically, and faithfully – not only
with reducing the need for abortion, but with encouraging strong parenting
and challenging poverty as well.  

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • marysia

    Kate,

    I am prolife and agree with your concerns.

    An abortion-reducing agenda shouldn’t be confined to some private faith-based charities that just happen to receive some federal funds. 

    And difficult pregnancies can indeed happen to any woman who is fertile, not just teens.

    Reducing abortion is something that requires the wisdom of people from all genders and from all religions and none.

     

    reducing abortion requires an *all out* public commitment of government resources to comprehensive sex ed, lgbt justice, family planning, universal health care, paid family leave, a living wage, and more.

     

     

     

    Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

  • invalid-0

    RE: No Women on Faith Based Council.

    There should NOT be a faith-based anything in government!

    Separation of church and state worked for 225; let’s keep it that way. It is disgusting the way Bush/aka Hoover II used religion to promote his agenda.

  • invalid-0

    will we be lynched for our sins or given the chair? welcome to AMERICAN THEOCRACY DYSTOPIA