Patriotic Games: Anti-Environment, Anti-Choice Groups Make Their Moves Zero Population Growth Washington, D.C. This article discusses the Right's involvement in working to weaken environmental protection. Population advocates are well served by an understanding of their formidable opponents, namely the anti-choice and anti-environmental "user" groups (deceptively termed the "Wise Use" movement by its participants). Both these groups perpetuate effective misinformation campaigns: Users pit jobs vs. the environment; anti-choice extremists preach a "family values" agenda that promotes sexual ignorance over education. The tactics and moralistic language used by the anti-choice and anti-environmental groups are remarkably similar, and have become all too familiar to many population advocates. Such groups play a significant rule in shaping political debate, and have proven themselves effective opponents to both reproductive choice and a health environment. Preaching Spontaneous Abundance The anti-choice and anti-environmental movements are similar in that they both espouse a pro-growth doctrine and a faith in the limitless abundance of natural resources. Anti-choice leaders take the biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" literally -- promoting an anti-abortion, anti- contraception and anti-sex education agenda. In a similar vein, the anti- environmentalists believe that humankind's mission is to dominate and "subdue the earth." Their political agenda includes opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for all exploration, clear-cutting old growth forests, gutting the Endangered Species Act and opening 10 million acres of designated wilderness to development. As Ron Arnold, one of the most outspoken leaders of the User movement, explained, "We want you to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely. And we want people to understand that is a noble goal." "It's a holy war between fundamentally different religions," proclaims Charles Cushman of the National Inholders Association, an anti-environmental organization, "The preservationists [environmentalists] are . . . worshipping trees and animals and sacrificing people . . ." A similar viewpoint is expressed by Judie Brown, anti-choice leader and president of the American Life League: "[Environmentalists] are more concerned with saving animal life such as whales, seals, snail darters, owls and hawks. They are equally concerned about controlling the numbers of human beings who live on the earth because they view human beings, another animal form, as a threat to the animals they claim are 'endangered species.'" Anti-environment and anti-abortion extremists also portray environmental and pro-choice advocates as the new political threat. It's as if they are looking for a substitute for the Cold War. As former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall aptly puts it, "the color green has become red" in the eyes of the far Right. Allusions to a "socialist plot" to control people and destroy the economy are found throughout anti-environment and anti-choice rhetoric. "The phony environmental crisis is a socialist plot to create so much bureaucratic control of business in the name of saving the environment that it will cost billions of dollars and thousands of lost jobs during the next ten years," writes Fundamentalist Reverend Tim LaHaye, former board member of the Moral Majority. The anti-choice organization, Human Life International warns that ". . . the birthrate is below reproduction, and the industrial power of the nation will certainly decline . . a direct result of Planned Parenthood's work." Know Thy Enemy Combining skilled rhetoric and a subtle distortion of the facts, the anti- choice and User movements have successfully employed similar tactics to stymie pro-choice and environmental initiatives. With the help of two sympathetic presidential administrations, anti-choice and anti-environmental ideologues have infiltrated the courts and federal agencies -- wielding tremendous influence over policies relating to reproductive health and the environment. In particular, both camps have effectively used the judicial system to advance their agendas and undermine precedents that protect reproductive rights and the quality of the environment. In two symbolic decisions handed down this June, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the U. S. Supreme Court confirmed every population advocate's deepest fear -- that we can't rely on the highest Court to protect our fundamental rights to individual reproductive choice and a healthy environment. Both cases have sent a confusing and insidious message. While on the surface the decisions appeared to uphold the right to choose and the right to protect the environment, by the same stroke the Court undermined the principles that enable us to exercise these very rights, thereby diminishing their constitutional protection. In Casey, the Court severely weakened Roe v. Wade, the precedent establishing a constitutional right to choose abortion, by allowing states to restrict access to abortion services. In the Lucas case, the Court set a disturbing new precedent which calls into question the ability of state and federal government to enforce environmental regulations when they impact upon private property owners. As a result, the Court catapulted reproductive rights and environmental issues squarely into the political debate and shifted the battleground from the judicial to the legislative arena. The anti-choice lobby has effectively impeded the progress of pro-choice legislation by "littering" pro-choice bills with anti-choice amendments such as mandatory parental involvement for minors seeking abortion and mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion. Likewise, anti-environmentalist are gearing up to load the federal Endangered Species Act with debilitating amendments as the reauthorization process begins. To rally support for their legislative agendas, both camps have taken a unique approach to grassroots activism. Many of the User organizations are, in reality, merely frustrated corporate interests. Compulsory activism in which mining and timber industries fund and coordinate "grassroots demonstrations" of workers to protest un-employed by Users. Anti-choice leaders use mandatory "school trips", sponsored by private religious institutions to fill their ranks at political rallies. Through this technique, these movements attempt to falsely project the appearance of broad voluntary support for their political agendas. The "Vision Thing" Difficult economic times have helped to fuel increasing fears about the future. Anti-environment and anti-choice leaders have effectively used this fear to energize their crusades. The vision of the future promulgated by the Users is one in which a healthy environment can only mean lost jobs and lost profits. Anti-choice groups contend that women must not "deny their feminine nature" and should leave the workforce to return to the job of procreation as their fundamental mission. Such a vision ignores the economic necessity of women having to work outside the home to support their families as well as the economic and social impact of forcing women to have unwanted children. In addition, the long-term costs of a polluted and degraded environment are dismissed at a time when an increasing member of economists and political leaders recognize the connection between environmental health and economic well-being. The challenge facing the pro-choice and environmental communities is to regain control of the debate and promote a new vision of the future. A variety of polls show that Americans are committed to preserving freedom of choice and protecting the environment. A poll conducted by the League of Conservation Voters found that 69 percent of Americans choose environmental protection over the economy. A recent Associated Press poll found that 60 percent of Americans support a woman's right to choose abortion. As the nation struggles for solutions to escalating social, economic and environmental problems, many voters have expressed a desire for change. Unfortunately, while wide-spread support for choice and the environment clearly exists, the public has found itself mired in the elaborate rhetoric surrounding these issues. u Healing Creation: A New Theology for a Small Planet Zero Population Growth Washington, D.C. Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. Genesis, 1:28 Since God spoke those words to Adam and Eve, the human race has multiplied from an allegorical two to an actual 5.4 billion, and has so dominated nature that an estimated one to three species are rendered extinct every day. Is this what God intended? Many theologians think not. In fact, the magnitude of global environmental damage is prompting religious leaders throughout the world to question how they can inspire restoration. Some, like Timothy Weiskel of the Harvard Divinity School, believe religious leaders have a crucial responsibility to help humankind assume a more humble role within the whole of creation. Says Weiskel: "The time has come for contemporary theologians to re-state some simple truths; we did not create the world; we cannot control it. Instead, we must learn in full humility to live with all other creatures within the world's limits." Population from the Pulpit It may be surprising to learn that so many of the current efforts by the religious community include curbing population growth as a primary concern. For example, approximately 80 individual churches and temples from 27 states are currently active in the newly-formed Ministry for Population Concerns. The Ministry states as it goal building "a strong faith-based movement for change in our country's population policies." It encourages member congregations to support appropriate Congressional action and circulates population-related sermons. National church bodies are also addressing the population issue. The American Baptist Church's Policy Statement on Ecology stops short of directly advocating population stabilization or individual fertility control. But both the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s and the United Methodist's environmental policy statements call for measures to stabilize world and U. S. population. In addition, many religious leaders are collaborating with others, outside of the faith community. For example, close to 300 religious leaders have endorsed an appeal which calls for a joint science-religion commitment on the environment. Drafted by Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan during the 1990 meeting of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders, the appeal calls upon spiritual leaders to advocate, among other things, the need for "a voluntary halt to world population growthwithout which many of the other approaches to preserve the environment will be nullified.' Also in 1990, in preparation for the World Council of Churches annual meeting held this past February, theologians and church leaders joined scientists and economists in issuing a statement that blamed human actions of "mastery and dominion" for overwhelming the planet's life-support systems. The Statement calls upon churches to recast as necessary all hymns, doctrines, confessions and liturgies "to ensure that they reflect new theological and ethical insight into human responsibilities for the care and preservation of creation", including "the stewardship of human fertility." Other religious coalitions are currently preparing for the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). One goal of UNCED is the issuance of an Earth Charter; a basic statement of principles on humankind's relationship with nature, including guidelines for sustainable and equitable development. Some religious coalitions have already drafted Earth Charters for consideration by the governmental and non-governmental leaders attending UNCED. The International Coordinating Committee for Religion and the Earth (ICCRE), composed of 50 representatives from all of North America's major faiths, is one of those coalitions. Following their first recommendation of redistributing ownership and control of the Earth's resources, ICCRE identified the need to "stabilize the world's population." Similarly, the Working Group on Ethics, Development and the Environment of the U. S. Citizen's Network on UNCED included in its proposed Earth Charter that "International organizations and member states should make concerted efforts to slow the dramatic growth in world population by encouraging fair standards of living for all and making family planning services available to all on a strictly voluntary basis." The Working Group is made up of members from the North American Coalition on Religious and Ecology, the Consortium on Religion and Ecology International and other religious leaders. "Pro-Life" Predicament Not all religious leaders, however, are so willing to address overpopulation. Many Christian fundamentalists continue to espouse the "Be fruitful and multiply" ethic. And others, like Pope John Paul II, conspicuously deflect the population issue. For instance, according to a spokesperson at the United States Catholic Conference, the Vatican emphasized that humankind has a moral responsibility to alleviate global problems like hunger and poverty through resource distribution. In addition, the Vatican now cautions couples that responsible parenthood entails being able to provide for the children's well-being. Nonetheless, the Vatican has in no way altered the Church's long-standing view of contraception: Fertility is to be controlled outside of marriage through abstinence, and within marriage through natural family planning. The Pope's position, which ignores the simple biological fact that natural family planning is not fool-proof, is the cause of much consternation. As Dr. Robert Goodland from the World Bank said in his challenge to the Vatican: "Is there a hierarchy between starvation, unwanted children, abandoned babies and infanticide (mortal sins) at one end, versus prevention such as by contraception (venial sins) at the other? And what about the women who consider terminating an unintended pregnancy? The Roman Catholic Church holds that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception and thus is vehemently opposed to abortion. Other religious sects are not so adamant, Judaism, for example, maintains that full personhood occurs at birth. Consequently, the United Synagogue of America states that "under special circumstances, Judaism chooses and requires abortion as an act which affirms and protects the life, well-being and health of the mother." And the Presbyterian Church (USA), like several other Protestant faith communities, has "long affirmed women's ability to make responsible decisions, whether the choice be to abort or to carry the pregnancy to term." Nonetheless, "pro-lifers" use the Bible to argue that personhood begins at the moment of conception and consequently that abortion is murder and must be outlawed. But as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR) points out, that position is theological belief, not biological fact, and the moment of personhood as been disputed by theologians for centuries. RCAR, comprised of 35 national Protestant, Jewish and other denominations and faith groups, asserts that reproductive freedom, including the right to abortion, is intrinsically tied to religious liberty: "We oppose any attempts to place into secular law one theory of when life begins." Further, Dr. Paul D. Simmons, a professor of Christian ethics and the author of Personhood, the Bible & the Abortion Debate, argues that, taken in complete context, the biblical portrait of a person is one of a "complex, many-sided creature with god-like abilities and the moral responsibility to make choices"a definition which he says does not fit the fetus until, at best, the second half of gestation. Instead, Simmons stresses, it is the woman who fits the biblical definition of personhood. He maintains that abortion is a "god-like" decision, which should be made by a woman "reflecting on her own well-being, the genetic health of the fetus and the survival of the human race." Many people of faith now recognize that survival of the human race rests, ironically, on its very ability to limit both its numbers and its polluting, consuming ways. As Reverend Peter Moore-Kochlacs said in a recent sermon at the Culver-Palms (California) United Methodist Church: "A number of Americans question aborting a fetus, yet many miss the equally grave problem that through our continued population explosion we are killing entire species of other plant and animal life. There is nothing pro-life about this predicament" =================================================== How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All other rights reserved. For more information contact: Pat Lewis National Jewish Democratic Council 711 Second Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 544-7636 =================================================== This document is from the Politics section of the WELL gopher server: gopher://gopher.well.com/11/Politics/ Questions and comments to: gopher@well.com .