Is This Really the Word of God? A Seminarian’s Take on Anti-Choice Protesters

My first assignment as an intern at Faith Aloud was to participate in a peaceful presence demonstration at a women's health clinic in Granite City that performs abortions. Our purpose is to show the women that come for abortions that there is an alternative voice to the Christians that are shouting that God hates them.

As a part of the demonstration, we are instructed to remain silent. The idea of this concept is that we can get our point across without needing to scream at others. Instead we hold signs that express our thoughts. The sign I chose said, “Jesus did not shame women.”

When I arrived, I was nervous because I had no idea what to expect. Abortion is a very heated topic for many people and can even lead to violence. About an hour into our demonstration a man from the protesters side came right up to the building and confronted me about my sign. Following the rules, I chose not to respond to him. When one of the clinic employees noticed what was happening, she came over and informed the man that he had to leave clinic property. He did leave but not quietly. The entire time, he was shouting back at me “are you proud of this?!”

The rest of the morning went by without incident until we started to leave. The same man decided to follow us to our cars. He shouted, “Are you proud of what you have done here today and how can you call yourself a Christian?” Although, it was hard, I decided to ignore his comments-- getting into a confrontation would not show my idea of who God is to anyone. My understanding of God as loving and forgiving does not need words to convey. Silence sometimes speaks louder than words, and I believe that simply being present can be just as powerful for the people I am supporting.

The “shouting man” (as I will call him) and I have a very different view of God. The “shouting man” sees God as Judge and feels the need to convince the women that if they have an abortion they will receive God’s judgment. He feels that his job is to “lead” the women away from “sin.” As frightening as it seems, the “shouting man” believes that he is doing the will of God.

I believe that we both see these women as neighbors in need, but the heart of the matter as I see it is that I want to embrace the woman entirely as she is and the “shouting man” wants to change her, and make her conform to his personal ideals.

The women that come to this clinic have had to make a difficult decision that will change their lives, and they need to be nurtured and cared for emotionally and physically. They have the right to be loved and valued unconditionally. My greatest fear is that the women who come to this clinic will see people like the “shouting man” as the only representative of the church; my fear is that these women would see the “shouting man” as the only church that there is. My need is to communicate to the women having the abortion that they are not being condemned by this decision and that God loves them completely. I want them to know that the God of judgment that the “shouting man” represents is not the only voice for God that Christianity has to offer.

To me, Christianity is about unconditional love, and true acceptance of people means going to wherever they are on their journey.

-Chris

Holding the Pro-Life Movement Legally Responsible for Harassment and Violence

The Ku Klux Klan. Church of the Creator. Ranch Rescue. Aryan Nations. The YMCA.

Question: What do these organizations have to do with each other?
Answer: They all were either totally or nearly bankrupted by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of a civil law suit.

Most of the cases mentioned above were racially-charged, but go with me on this one: what if they were based on gender and the right to privacy? According the US Census Bureau, women make up 50.7% of the American population, making them the largest targeted demographic for gender-based hate organizations like Operation Rescue, Youth Ministries, Inc., Lambs of Christ, and even the local Small Victories. These terrorist groups aim their hate speech, fists, guns, and bombs at women, their doctors, and their rights, yet they somehow manage to avoid being criminally prosecuted.

I have a crazy thought - what if we held these organizations, linked to assault, battery, harassment, arson, and murder, to the same standards held to the KKK, Christian Knights, and other organizations of the like? As in, we go for their pocketbooks, just as the SPLC did to take down racism in the South. Civil lawsuits do not always end in loads of punitive damages, but a handful of them end up in social change. For an example, see Brown v. Board of Education, any case about creationism being taught in public schools, and of course, Roe v. Wade. Few end up with huge awards, like the crown jewel of the SPLC's legal repertoire, Macedonia Baptist Church v. Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which resulted in the largest civil damages award ever in the amount of $37.8 million. Obviously, this bankrupted the KKK in South Carolina, which was forced to give up all property holdings and its headquarters to barely make a dent in the awarded damages.

I'll give you a very relevant example, VanDuyn v. Smith (Ill. Appellate Court, 1988). Margaret VanDuyn, a director of an ambulatory surgical treatment center that offered first trimester abortions, who filed suit against Pro-Life Action League activist Gerald T. Smith in 1988. Smith had followed Ms. VanDuyn in her car, to her home, to the airport, and to work, in addition to picketing in front of her house and outside of her workplace (admitting to violating Illinois state law). Smith also posted "Wanted" posters around Ms. VanDuyn's neighborhood and gave them to her friends, family, and acquaintances. Smith publicly accused Ms. VanDuyn of killing more than 50,000 "children" for profit and included false information about abortion procedures, none of which were performed in the medical center.

Ms. VanDuyn, as a result, suffered severe emotional distress, experiencing panic attacks, irregular hypertension, insomnia, and hospitalization. She brought a suit against Smith, and was able to successfully prove intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of the defendant's actions against her. The court reasoned that, since Ms. VanDuyn was not a public official or figure, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was blatantly violated by Smith and the pro-life movement. Ms. VanDuyn's suit was for $15,000 - which is money that a lot of pro-life organizations don't have. Unfortunately, Ms. VanDuyn's National Health Care Services Clinic was firebombed in 1993, but you better believe the ATF and FBI had a good clue as to who was behind the terrorism (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4192176.html).

I can tell you exactly where the pro-choice movement has it all wrong: we rely too much on the police and the government to intervene and assert our rights and protections as American citizens. But guess what. Abortion is still too touchy of an issue for anyone to have the chutzpah to step up and stand for women's rights. This is where we take our fate into our own hands, and file civil suits against these misogynist, criminal bullies.

Now, I will issue a disclaimer that just because you take some photos or video footage doesn't mean you have a guaranteed case. No lawsuit is ever guaranteed, no matter how solid the evidence. But with a fed-up clinic employee, a passionate lawyer, and some sound logic and proof, you have the potential for a strong case. And never, ever incite violence or retribution. Just like the KKK and other domestic terrorist organizations, pro-life groups want our protesters to "violate" their civil rights. We in the pro-choice movement must always take the high road.

To me, this whole issue is full of irony and hypocrisy. Pro-lifers can infiltrate our legislature, assault and bomb their way to the top, and pass laws that restrict our legal right to autonomous decisions, but heaven forbid if we step on their toes a little bit to assert that right.

-Chelsea

Anti-Choice Protesters: "Freedom of Speech" vs. "Abuse"

A few weeks ago I drove out to Granite City, along with our newest seminary interns, Chris and Arik, to support the Hope Clinic during their morning appointments. For three hours, me and a bunch of seminary students stood in front of the clinic holding signs that said, “My Church is Pro-Choice,” “Women Deserve Compassion, Not Condemnation” and “Abortion is a Moral Choice.”

On the sidewalk outside the clinic, a crowd of at least 70 protesters gathered to sing and preach and scream at the women walking into the clinic. They told the women they hoped when they went to hell, they’d have to look into the face of the fetus they aborted and hear it’s screams for eternity. How horrible is that? Even worse, they were especially hostile towards the African American women walking into the clinic-- accusing them of being racist by aborting a black baby (yet this was not an argument they used for white women). They tried every tactic, getting as personal as possible in order to get the woman’s attention. Several times they got personal enough to hit a nerve, and the woman they targeted burst into tears. And when there were no women to harass, they started in on us.

When I woke up that morning I was feeling as emotionally strong as I ever have. Yet driving home from the clinic, I found myself feeling sad and dejected, and I didn’t know why.
I asked myself:
“Do I whole-heartedly believe in a woman’s right to choose?”
Yes.
“Do I think the women coming into the Clinic were doing something wrong?”
Absolutely not.
“Do I feel like I was doing something good by being at the clinic and supporting the patients, staff and doctors?”
Yes.
So why do I feel so bad right now?

The fact is, even when you whole-heartedly believe in your cause, being screamed at is awful. Even when you know the words that are being screamed at you are not true, having that much hate directed at you hurts. After three hours of being emotionally bullied, those negative comments do make you feel like crap.

This especially made me feel for the women there for an appointment. Honestly, I don’t know how I would be able to deal with all that hatred if I were already feeling emotionally strained from the stressful experience of an unplanned pregnancy-- a time when I know any unkind word would be especially hurtful and damaging to my ability to cope with the situation. It especially made me feel for the many women who grew up attending a church that spouted similar condemning rhetoric, but still found themselves needing abortion care.

As I watched woman after woman being yelled at, approached, and even getting her picture taken by the protesters, I kept wondering, “How in the world is this legal?” Many clinics have attempted to protect their patients with criminal lawsuits against protesters. But unfortunately, by invoking their first amendment, most of the protesters have gotten away with what I see as very un-American, intolerant behavior. I do believe in freedom of speech, but I don’t believe in freedom of abuse. And the words spoken by the protesters was nothing short of abusive.

-Allison

Shouldn't We All Have Equal Rights?

Last Wednesday, I made the two hour drive out to Columbia, Missouri. No, I wasn’t going to see the Tigers play, I was going to attend a town hall hosted by Promo, Faith Aloud and the ACLU to discuss the important issues surrounding a gay man who had been discriminated against by the state of Missouri. You might be asking yourself, “Wait, what do LGBT rights have to do with Faith Aloud?”

We’re glad you asked. Faith Aloud is committed to exploring all of the ways faith and spirituality intersect with issues of sexuality. We think reproductive justice and LGBTQ advocacy are intimately linked because they both are about the privacy of adults to make their own decisions regarding sexual partners and reproduction. Faith Aloud opposes stereotyping, discrimination, and any religious attempt to control the sexual behavior of consenting adults in a mutually satisfying relationship. In a nutshell, we supports all persons in their struggle to create the families they desire. Sorry about the shameless plug-- let’s get back to the issue at hand: the town hall meeting to discuss the case of Kelly Glossip V. MODOT.

At the meeting, there was a phenomenal panel of speakers from the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, Promo, and the Human Services Department of Columbia. But for me, the best part of the meeting was hearing Kelly Glossip himself speak. He told the story of how he and his partner Dennis met, how they dated for 3 years, and then had a commitment ceremony and considered themselves married for 12. He talked about how they had raised Kelly’s son together, and had built a beautiful life together based on love, trust, and devotion. He described the unbearable heartbreak of finding out his partner had been killed, on Christmas of all days. At this point he broke down for a moment, saying, “Even though it’s been almost two years since his death, it’s still impossible to speak about without crying.” He continued on to talk about the discrimination and disrespect he faced at every turn. At the funeral, the minister mentioned Dennis’ dog in the Eulogy, but not his life partner or the son they shared. Similarly, the obituary made no mention of the immediate family Dennis was leaving behind. Choking back tears, Kelly sighed, “It was hard enough to try to deal with the enormous grief of losing your true love. But it’s even worse to be invisible in your grief, to be ignored by the very groups that should be supporting you.” In attempt to gain much needed financial support for himself and his son, Kelly applied for survivor benefits that are promised to the spouses of fallen Police Officers and Highway Patrol. To prove his and Dennis’ commitment to each other, Kelly attached about an inch-thick stack of papers showing that he and his partner shared bank accounts, mortgages, cars, and the guardianship of a child. Yet his application for survivor benefits was the first ever to be denied. At the end of his testimony, Kelly looked down at his hands and said softly, "All I am asking is for the same dignity for my family as is shown to any other Highway Patrol family in their time of need. Thanks for listening to my story.”

Let me tell you, it is hard to listen to a speech like that from a sweet, unassuming man and not feel sad and angry about the bigotry he’s faced. And worst of all, as the laws currently stand in Missouri, it is not illegal to deny a gay individual of spousal rights-- in 2004, Missouri passed an amendment that would ban gay marriage. However, on the bright side, this amendment does allow for the opportunity to recognition of other relationships in order to extend full equality to all citizens. Therefore, under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the ACLU will argue that Missouri Department of Transportation must not deny committed partners the benefits they deserve.

Tomorrow there will be a similar Town Hall Meeting in Springfield, MO. If you are anywhere near Springfield or have any friends in the area who might be interested, I encourage you to attend-- it was a very moving and informative experience for me, and this case has very important implications for the future rights of LGBT citizens. If you cannot attend, we urge you to follow the case, talk about it with your friends, and send letters to your representatives letting them know that the equality of all citizens is an important issue to you.

-Allison Pikaard

For more information about how the ACLU is taking on the case, check out their website: http://www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/currentcases/glossipvmissouridepartment.htm

Save money. Take away rights. Walmart.

I have had many life-changing experiences throughout my short 23 years. Meeting the Rev. Rebecca Turner in 2009 was one of those days - Faith Aloud helped me to realize that I don't have to compromise my beliefs. Living for three months in a developing Latin American country was another eye-opener. Ranking among my life-defining moments was meeting Betty Dukes. Unless you've lived under a rock for the past 10 years, her name should ring a bell. She is the named plaintiff in the landmark case, *Dukes v. Walmart*, originally a race discrimination suit but was expanded to include the 1.5 million female Walmart employees and former employees who were passed up on wage increases and job promotions, which were given to male counterparts. Ms. Dukes claimed that Walmart Stores, Inc., violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with its clear and obvious bias against women.

Betty Dukes is the Rosa Parks of our generation, and is exactly the kick in the pants that our country needs. A humble, working-class woman from California, Ms. Dukes was scraping by off the multi-billion dollar megacorporation's meager minimum wage salary. She loved her job, and performed well. There were no legitimate cited reasons from the defendant Walmart that would indicate why Ms. Dukes would not receive a promotion or pay raise. But she didn't. So she fought back

And that woman fought hard. Ms. Dukes made connections with Equal Rights Advocates to represent her, won at trial court level, at the appellate level, and so on- then took her case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Until Walmart reared its ugly, discriminating head and made Ms. Dukes' case into something so far off-base from its original claim. Walmart said that Betty Dukes' case violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its guidelines on class action suits.

Never mind that she was making minimum wage while the Walton family squandered its wealth. Forget that she was denied job promotions, pay increases, and project assignments. And ignore the fact that Walmart uses sweatshops, undercuts competitors, destroys jobs (and lives), and violates EPA and labor guidelines. Instead of owning up to the fact that the Arkansas-based mega-corporation violated multiple federal laws, Walmart's lawyers turn the tables in true lawyer fashion and make the issue about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The turned-around, newly-dubbed "Walmart v. Dukes" redefined that federal standards for class-action suits, making it harder for the middle-class worker to file suit against his mega-employer.

And the four conservative, anti-women, anti-labor, anti-rights judges agreed with Walmart, and somehow got Kennedy to agree with them.

If you're not fired up yet, you're not paying attention. Your purchase at Walmart has cost a qualified woman a pay raise, a job promotion, and so on. Those bananas that cost you $0.89 just cost a woman her ability to feed her children. You could have spent $1 at a farmer's market or local grocer. Is someone's rights worth the $0.11 deficit? That's what you do, that's how your Walmart purchases, are helping to bring America down.

I love my country. I truly, honestly do. But our nickel-and-diming to save a few bucks at Walmart and other mega-retailers have cost us dearly. I've heard from many conservative friends and family members that "ObamaCare" is cutting jobs. Well guess what. Increasing national healthcare coverage doesn't kill jobs; your shopping at Walmart does.

-Chelsea