From Hate to Love: Why "40 Days of Prayer" is Under Attack by the Christian Right

by Carole Joffe on RHRealityCheck

Below is a an interview with Reverend Rebecca Turner of Faith Aloud, conducted by Carole Joffe. Faith Aloud is a pro-choice religious organization which seeks to eliminate the stigma associated with abortion and sexuality, and to provide support to both women and providers.

“Today we pray for women for whom pregnancy is not good news, that they know they have choices.”

“Today we pray for the men in our lives, that they may offer their loving kindness and support for women’s difficult decisions.”

“Today we pray for Christians everywhere to embrace the loving model of Jesus in the way he refused to shame women.”

Above are some of the individual components of the “40 Days of Prayer,” a series composed by the Rev. Rebecca Turner, a United Church of Christ minister, and the head of Faith Aloud, a pro-choice religious organization based in St. Louis, Missouri. Turner originally wrote these prayers to counter religious-based protests against women's rights to choose abortion. For some years, the “40 Days of Prayer” were used in various ways by clinics but ignored by the anti-choice movement. However, recently when a clinic in northern California reprinted the prayers in a brochure, the movement took notice, and Turner’s prayers—and by extension, the concept of a religiously-based prochoice group—drew much attention from the religious right, including interviews by Fox News and Focus on the Family, and follow up stories in various anti-choice publications.

Below is an interview I conducted with Rev. Turner about her organization, the 40 Days of Prayer, and the reactions of opponents of abortion when news of her activities went viral.

What is Faith Aloud?

Faith Aloud is an interfaith nonprofit organization with a history of 30 years of pro-choice activism. Our mission is to eliminate the religious stigma of abortion and sexuality. We train clergy to talk to women about their pregnancy choices and we receive calls from women all over the country as well as internationally. We also provide spiritual resources for abortion clinics to use to help their religious patients.

Most women in the US identify as religious, and those seeking abortion are no different. Our resources, created by clergy of several faith groups, offer support to women during times of distress.

Why did you write the 40 Days of Prayer?

I wrote some prayers and offered them to abortion providers to use whenever and however they wanted to. We've since made a full poster of the prayers that is on the walls in many clinics across the country. We were angered by the swarms of protesters that regularly took siege of abortion clinics and would hurl hateful remarks at the women arriving. As a Christian minister, I was especially angered that most of these protesters who were so hateful and judgmental actually call themselves Christian. I wanted women to know that many Christians are compassionate and supportive, and to help them find strength in their religious faith instead of condemnation.

I also wanted to give spiritual support to the other people [affected] by the daily barrage of hate -- the clinic staff and escorts. Few people know what they go through every day because of their dedication to women. And few people understand that many of them-doctors, counselors, administrators-are deeply religious people themselves who have often felt rejected by their faith communities. This is wrong. I feel that I am a pastor to many of the abortion providers who use our services. Religious faith should give us strength and confidence, not guilt and shame. I have never understood why anyone would support a religion that shames and judges and ridicules its own members. That is abusive behavior and should not be tolerated in any setting.

Tell more about your mindset as you wrote the prayers.

I wrote all of the prayers in one day. I thought about women's reproductive lives, the difficulties of being female, the choices we make, the relationships we have, the various people who work with pregnant women, and I prayed for them all. Many websites are claiming that we're praying for more abortions, which is silly. They can read the prayers and see that isn't the case. Most of the prayers are really all about women and their reproductive lives. We pray for gender discrimination to cease. We pray for women who are abused. We pray for women who are infertile. We pray for women to have confidence. How can they be upset by this? Really I think the only objection to these prayers comes from a deep misogyny that refuses to acknowledge women as autonomous beings with their own spiritual lives.

How would you characterize the main reactions you have received since this flurry of publicity?

The media to date has been from anti-choice groups, so most of the people calling and writing to us are their constituents. They are quite hostile, usually rambling, callers are often screaming. They accuse us of pretending to be ministers or Christians. They accuse us of baby-murdering. Emails quote a lot of scripture and tell us we're going to burn in hell. We have had some new supporters find us through this, though. And we've begun a campaign called "Hate-into-Love" which allows our supporters to pledge donations for each hostile contact we receive.

Why do you think the 40 Days of Prayer has hit such a nerve with the Right, once they became aware of it?

They claim they think it's a mockery of the 40 days for Life campaign, but I don't think there is any mockery in it. The prayers are quite sincere. Apparently the religious right does not believe that anyone is allowed to pray except those who believe as they do. This is not a biblical idea; it is pure arrogance. The Christian scriptures say "Judge not, lest you be judged" and yet these people want to judge us as "fake" or "delusional" or even "possessed." One person who called us after the news broke asked "Are you planning to get groups of people to rally at abortion clinics to pray your prayers?" My answer was "The people inside the clinics are praying every day." Prayer does not belong to one group of people. But this seems to be the source of the outrage, that we dare to pray. It is apparently a very scary proposition to them that women might hear a compassionate religious voice and feel strengthened instead of weakened.

What have reactions to this campaign been in the pro-choice community?

A few pro-choice [organizations] have helped to pass along the information about our "Hate-into-Love" campaign and have re-posted the stories. We're getting pledges from around the country. We've been gaining a lot of new Facebook friends [who] learned about us through the negative media.

Do you think this community is more open now than in the past to a religious presence, such as that offered by Faith Aloud?

The independent abortion provider community has always been very welcoming of spirituality, seeing it as an important part of a woman's life and her decisions. But there is an element of the pro-choice community that is less supportive, seeing religion as the problem rather than a part of the solution, and really I can't blame them for feeling that way. They've been threatened and attacked and shamed by religious zealots. But, as I mentioned, most of the women in the United States call themselves religious or spiritual, and so we need to help them use their faith for strength during difficulty. It shouldn't be about we need, but what women need making difficult decisions.

In the several days that news of the “40 Days of Prayer” has gone viral, you have received much hate mail. Have you received anything from any anti-choice individual or group that suggests some common ground?

No. The hate mail tends to fall into these camps "You have no right to call yourself a Christian or pray" or "I'm praying for God's vengeance on you." We're getting some love mail, too, with people finding us for the first time and saying thank you for being a religious voice of compassion and reason.

Backward Motion

For the past two months, the news, both local and national, has been full of stories of insults and discrimination toward women. There is a pattern developing that cannot be denied; the gains that women have made in their personal lives and careers are under threat. There are many men in positions of great power in the media and in politics who want to turn back the clocks on women's pay, women's autonomy, and women's healthcare. They show blatant disrespect for women.

Missouri law has required health insurers to cover birth control since 2001, but the Missouri House and Senate have voted to overturn that law by passing SB749. This bill allows employers to discriminate against women by refusing to provide insurance to cover contraceptives and sterilization.

When 60 year old Rush Limbaugh called 30 year old law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and demanded she post online videos of herself having sex, it wasn't personal. He didn't even know her, nor did his words have any relationship to her actual testimony. He was insulting every woman who uses or has used modern forms of contraception (99% of us). He equated the use of contraception with sexual addiction and prostitution.

Some have argued that he is just a shock jock entertainer not be taken seriously. But his tactic of making sexual insults against a woman because he disagrees with her policy on public health should be examined carefully. This barbaric rhetoric sinks into the public consciousness and does real damage to women and to our society. These very public messages work on women's psyches to produce shame and silence about their health care needs.

The reality is that the advent of the birth control pill has been exceptionally good for women. Researchers at the University of Virginia recently released a report (March 2012) showing that women who go on the pill between ages 18-21 have an 8% higher income by age 50. These are the exact ages that most unplanned pregnancies happen, so preventing those pregnancies, which often interrupt higher education, gives women a real advantage toward ultimate career and financial success. It is no accident that women began working outside the home in greater numbers in exactly the same decade that the birth control became available.

A career not only produces financial stability, but also generates personal autonomy and sense of accomplishment. How many of those reading this journal would be where they are without access to the pill? Perhaps in this recession this is exactly what some men fear-that women are becoming too talented, too great a presence in the marketplace.

The current backlash against women is falling under the creative new smokescreen of "religious liberty". We have heard the religious arguments against contraception for 50 years, but women, public health officials, and legislators generally favored common sense and personal choice over ideology from an earlier century. But in this election year, common sense seems a distant memory as religious zealots seek to control whether a woman can access affordable contraception, whether she has a choice in which contraception to use, and whether she has to disclose her prescriptions and medical conditions to her employer.

Some of these zealots argue that pregnancy is not a disease and therefore preventing pregnancy is not healthcare. But pregnancy does have real health implications, both simple and complicated. A pregnancy can be life-threatening, but even a routine pregnancy causes bodily changes that may call for medical remedies. Women younger than 21 and older than 35 face the possibilities of more medical complications due to pregnancy. Childbirth itself can be a difficult medical procedure, and a woman with a new baby has lower immunities due to lack of sleep and changes in her hormones. Women are healthier if they space their pregnancies in such a way that allows the body to regain its full strength between nursing one child and conceiving another. A study by the American Association for the Achievement of Science (February 2012) showed that taking hormonal birth control, even with all of its publicized side effects, is medically safer than pregnancy.

Some employers may be excited about the chance to reduce their insurance costs by refusing to cover contraception, but if so, they aren't thinking ahead. Contraception is far cheaper than maternity care. And it is far cheaper than child care and maternity leave. Contraception is good for business. It allows female employees to carefully plan their children in such a way that it does not disrupt their careers. It keeps them on the job longer between pregnancies so that they develop stronger job skills and make long-term contributions to the stability of their company.

Contraception is also good for the state and federal budgets. The Guttmacher Institute reports that the United States has the highest rate of unplanned pregnancy (49%) among the industrialized nations and that we spend over $11 billion dollars in government money on those pregnancies. How much higher will these numbers soar if contraception costs are not covered by insurance?

Limiting access to contraception and publicly shaming women who use contraception is, quite simply, bad policy. It's bad for the government, bad for business, and bad for women. We cannot be persuaded that the medical needs of a woman in any way restrict the religious freedom of her employer. Nor can we be persuaded that the religious preference of the employer should in any way interfere in the private medical affairs of the female employee.

We have come too far in our advancements toward equality to allow this backward motion.

-Rev. Rebecca Turner

Inbox debate

(The following blog is composed from an email exchange this morning between a relative and me. It has been edited/editorialized for readership.)

2:06 a.m. - I receive an email with an attached article from a very pro-life website. Article is about a baby who was "killed" by "Chinese government officials" after it had already been born. Article pushes for an American reaction against "after birth abortion." You read that correctly. Infanticide is now called "after birth abortion" by the pro-lifers. (Cue initial thoughts of "South Park" clips where a character's mother appeals to Bill Clinton to grant her an abortion of her 8-year-old son.)

8:43 a.m. - I respond and tell her that, actually, infanticide is not the same thing as an abortion, and that for once, we agree on something in that infanticide is wrong. Further explain that the photo from the article was either a sex-selective infanticide or a miscarriage (as are most pro-life pictures), and that "after birth abortion" is a political tactic to mislead and confuse. Apparently, mission accomplished.

8:53 a.m. - Response from relative - "However, infanticide is no different than after birth abortions." Duh. Isn't this what I just said?

8:57 a.m. - I further explain that "abortion" implies that birth has yet to occur. Neither side actually believes that killing birthed babies is okay. That's murder, that is wrong. "If birth has happened, abortion has not." - my words

(There. I thought the issue was resolved. Boy, was I wrong! Made the mistake of opening my inbox during class. Chaos ensues.)

11:07 a.m. - I receive an email of an article titled "Ethicists propose after-birth abortion." Immediate reaction - DUH! Infanticide is already illegal, why do we need to add more laws into the mix. Then I remembered...they renamed it to support the pro-life agenda.

11:13 a.m. - This is where I should have just stopped. I'll admit it. But this was personal, and I don't quit things. One of my personal downfalls...I explain to my beloved relative (not sarcasm) that if you stick lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. As in, if you call infanticide something else, it's not this "new" thing - it's still infanticide. Again, briefly mention that this is an insult to her intelligence that she's buying into this, yadda yadda. Moving on.

11:28 a.m. - Apparently NOT moving on. Message received - " Your president supports after birth abortions." No citations, no sources. Really?

(Can no longer keep my mouth shut. A few boring exchanges, typical propaganda said relative is fed through misleading sensationalist news and then...she asks me how pro choicers can support the killing of babies.)

11:46 a.m. - I respond to every claim she makes with the follow (of which I am VERY proud):

"Pro choice doesn't mean anti-life, which is a HUGE misconception from your side's point of view. I love babies! My boss loves babies! She has three kids of her own. Most prochoice leaders have children. So we are in no way anti-child, anti-life, whatever picture that's been painted for you.

We merely hold the view that no government or outside source has the capacity to tell us how many children we must have and when we should have them. That is OUR choice. Just like it is my choice to be on birth control pills for controlling endometriosis and possible future fertility. Is my mom in the wrong for choosing to have her tubes tied after having Molly? That's a form of birth control, and she made a choice to control the amount of children she wanted. I'm honestly surprised that more conservatives/Republicans aren't on board with this. It's about personal liberties and freedoms.

Once your "side" can see past the idea that "prochoice" encompasses more than just abortion, then we can agree on more things! It's super frustrating from our point of view when we go to Planned Parenthood to get annual exams (and mammograms, in my case) and get called "babykillers." That's not at all what it's about. Personal liberties and being able to make decisions without the government telling you what to do."

2:34 p.m. - I can't believe the word vomit I just spewed from my mouth. I just used a very, very Republican/conservative form of logic...and kind of liked it. And I meant every word I said. Why DO Republicans disagree with the pro-choice movement so often? We're pretty much aiming for the same thing here - we both want to make our own life decisions without any government oversight into our personal lives. The same argument was made for interracial marriages in the 60s and gay couples are making it today - if you don't want something, then don't get it. No one is forcing you to do what you don't want to, so why should it be the other way around?

Present - Still pretty disgusted with myself for using Republican logic, but I'll get over it. This is why I'm in law school, right?

-Chelsea

One more day

Eight months and one day ago, my dearest and closest friend, a dynamic and phenomenal man with a spirit and intellect unparalleled, died tragically and unexpectedly. I still have no idea how he died, why he died, and what I should now do without him. I wake up every morning and somehow drag myself out of bed, more often than not excusing myself from showers and meals, and pleading with the universe for that reprieve from the sadness that has a depth so severe I can't blink without tears falling from my eyes. Ryan Christopher Goskie, RN, BSN was an advocate - for women, for men, for children. Ryan faced evil daily and even in his death, was the object of vile hatred that resulted in a memorial service attended by friends, family, and police officers charged with keeping protestors at bay. Because Ryan defended a woman's right to choose every day by entering an abortion clinic and providing the best nursing care a woman could ever hope for, he was made a victim of this brutal assault of hate even after closing his eyes one final time. And so, in the last eight months and one day, I have watched the fight for women's reproductive health freedoms wondering how he might have reacted to this vicious assault on, what most reasonable people consider, the inherent right a woman has to choose how her health should be managed from a reproductive health standpoint. Would he have marched on the state house in Missouri when Representatives began supporting laws that would have eliminated funding to Planned Parenthood? Would he have written letters and made phone calls of protest to lawmakers insistent that mandatory waiting periods and ultrasounds without medical basis were in a patient's best interest? What would Ryan have said to us when the Susan G Komen Foundation voted to discontinue funding for breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood? How would he have celebrated the decision of that same organization to overturn their vote in favor of popular opinion and common decency? And what would Ryan have said when Sandra Fluke was denied the opportunity to testify to Congress about her experiences regarding birth control or the subsequent personal and egregious attacks Sandra has endured from politicians, conservative political pundits, and the King of Cowardice himself, Rush Limbaugh?

We can't know for sure what Ryan would have said because we were robbed of our precious time with him too soon. But as one of his closest confidantes and friends, I believe in my heart that Ryan would look upon all of this turmoil in the fight to keep choice and reproductive health rights both relevant and legal, and calmly advise us by saying, "One more day. One more day to make your voices heard. One more day to defend, one more day to fight, one more day to remind America that choice is here to stay and so are the people willing to stand up for it. One more day, Joey."

Ryan was famous for his witty one liners, his love of the sarcastic. But when it came to choice, Ryan didn't joke. He had been the victim of harsh, hateful words from his "Christian" opponents. He had been forced to end leases and move to new homes thanks to protesters' harassment miles away from the clinics in which he worked. Ryan had suffered a stabbing and near suffocation, believed by law enforcement to have been at the hands of a protestor so protective of "life" that he followed Ryan home, waited for him to walk his precious dog, and then attacked him in the dark driveway behind his apartment, leaving him to die when Ryan fought back and broke free of his attackers grip. So Ryan knew the hate that lives amongst us. Ryan knew the depths of this fight and perhaps more than any of us, Ryan knew the cost. And so I have to believe that "One more day" would be his advice. Which is to say, we have been given one more day to show our adversaries compassion, one more day to defend choice, one more day to remind women that they are not alone, that their voices can be heard, that their bodies are not the property of a government desperate to stifle their needs. We must not look at this mission with tired, hopeless eyes but instead with the courage and strength to believe that it can, in fact, be won. Men like Rush Limbaugh are feeding off our fear that we might lose. They can see our desperation and sense that even we don't know how much hope to have about the success we will have in defending these rights. Otherwise, men like Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have the guts to call hard working, faithful women like Sandra Fluke "sluts". Men like Rush know that if they keep kicking us down, we will be afraid to get back up. And that is what Ryan would have hated the most about the last eight months and one day, I think. Not that our rights were systematically being attacked. Not that women were being crucified for demanding equality. And certainly not that choice was being attacked once more. Ryan would have hated all of that, mind you, but what he would have hated the most was the assault on our *conviction* to always defend choice and our *conviction* to always defend women. Because the fact is, Ryan didn't go to his clinic every day, walking through a crowd of God fearing "Christians" who attacked his sexuality and family and values, simply to see women lose faith and give up. No. Ryan walked through that blanket of putrid hate every day because he believed that by standing next to women when they needed support the most he was defending not only their rights but their voice and faith too. Ryan knew what it might take others a lifetime to discover - giving up is not an option. We have to say it over and over, day in and day out. We have to demand of our elected leaders equality in legislation every day. We have to denounce infectious hatred from people who have radio and television platforms like Rush Limbaugh every single day. We must bear witness to the years of work done by those before us every single DAY. This is no time to give up or give in. This is no time to allow name calling and ignorance to diminish our resolve. Each day we read of a new law being voted on or another woman being called a whore for no reason cannot be a reason to back off our commitment or passion for what seems a never ending fight for what we know to be right. One more day.

One of the last conversations I had with Ryan was about his health, ironically. We discussed the options he had in dealing with a (non life threatening) health problem he was facing. We talked about how each choice would affect his work, his relationships, his quality of life. At the end of that conversation, I jokingly said to Ryan, "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could have discussions like this, even if it were about abortion?" And Ryan laughed and said, "But they can, Joey. They just don't know it yet. Which is why you and I are going to tell them, every day, until we're blue in the face."

Ryan knew all along what it seems America is learning the hard way - we CAN have those conversations. We just can't forget to have them. We can't forget to lift our voices. We can't forget to demand equality. We can't, simply put, give up on choice. We have to have the conversation every single day. We have to insist that people listen. We have to remind this country that attacking our liberties will not defeat or silence us. Because choice is more than abortion or birth control or mammograms. Choice is a human right to do what's best and the responsibility to never lose faith that our voices matter.

One more day.

-Joey

What legacy are we promoting?

As a child I visited the Missouri capitol with my school classes. I visited many more times with my parents. As a parent I proudly took my own children to Jefferson City to help them understand our process of government. As a minister I have taken youth groups and concerned citizens to visit the capitol and to meet with our elected leaders. On every visit, I walked the hallowed hallways, admired the murals of Thomas Hart Benton, and studied the history of Missouri in the museum. I have always felt a spirit of reverence for our democratic process and for all of the people who walked those halls before me.

Now, Missouri House Speaker Rep. Steven Tilley has commissioned a sculptor to create a bust of Rush Limbaugh to install in the Hall of Famous Missourians in the State House in Jefferson City. Among the likenesses of Mark Twain, Stan Musial, Dred Scott, and Sacajawea, Missouri children will now learn about the hatred and bigotry promoted by Limbaugh, thanks to Speaker Tilley.

My prayer is that the great state of Missouri should promote a legacy of kindness and humanitarianism, which should be reflected in the Hall of Famous Missourians. By adding Limbaugh's bust to our Hall, we are acknowledging a history of hate. As Missourians, Midwesterners, and Americans, this is a public shame. We want our children to know of the great advances of Edwin Hubble, the journalistic achievements of Walter Cronkite, and the historic implications of Dred Scott and his famous lawsuits. These Missourians are famous for making our world a better place. Of every single person in the Hall of Famous Missourians, it can be said that they set an example of excellence. But Rush Limbaugh shows no excellence; his infamy is for vitriolic insults and drug scandals.

This is not the story I want to share with my grandchildren. It is a scar upon all our people that can only bring us ridicule.

We need to stand united against the Speaker's attempt to memorialize a dark, embarrassing piece of Missouri's history. Rush Limbaugh does not belong in the Hall of Famous Missourians. Our children deserve better. Please, let us promote a proud Missouri legacy of love, not a history of hate.

-The Reverend Rebecca Turner