Grounding Yourself in Reproductive Justice:  A Resource for Clergy & Other Religious Professionals

by the Rev. Rob Keithan

Updated January 2022

What are we called to do in this time? The answers can be grouped into three areas (and potentially many others):

Area 1: Bring an intersectional, racial justice lens to all we do. 

The history of reproductive oppression and repression in this country is inseparable from our legacy of colonialism and racism. In more recent times, the far right’s organizing on abortion has always been about more than abortion. It’s about social and political control. As Randall Balmer points out in The Real Origins of the Religious Right, “the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools.” 

The reproductive justice framework was developed by a group of black women in 1994 to articulate both a broader approach to the work and a different process. It is a complement to the reproductive health and reproductive rights frameworks, but it is not the same.  Among other things, the reproductive justice framework requires bringing a racial justice analysis to all aspects of the work. Describing the reproductive framework could be a centerpiece of a reproductive justice Sunday sermon. 

Resources:

Area 2: Spiritual and Pastoral Engagement

To be successful, and to have integrity, our focus cannot be only about changing other people somewhere else. We are all products of this broken culture, and every one of us has some learning and some healing to do. Even in Unitarian Universalist congregations, people are hesitant to discuss these issues openly, or with their clergy. There may not be the same fear of judgment that there would be in more conservative religious communities, but our shame-intensive culture has been very successful at encouraging most everyone to suppress their emotional and spiritual needs related to sexual and reproductive experiences. The result is that the vast majority of people in this country–including many in UU congregations–navigate incredibly challenging situations with little to no support from their spiritual leaders or community. 

Ending this cultural stigma requires proactive engagement. Dominant culture that goes unchallenged remains dominant. In order for people to feel comfortable bringing their whole selves to the congregation, we must invite and encourage it. At the same time, clergy and other pastoral caregivers must be prepared to provide nonjudgmental pastoral care related to sexual and reproductive health issues. To do this effectively, it is helpful to have some focused learning and reflection. It is unfortunately true that issues related to sexual and reproductive decisions are among the most theologically and politically loaded issues of our time, and most clergy receive zero formal training on how to engage them pastorally. It is critical that pastoral caregivers (1) do reflection and healing on their own triggers and trauma, so they are able to be fully present with congregants, and (2) recognize the dynamics of stigma and shame that are present in any conversation related to sexuality and reproduction, and (3) understand that people with BIPOC+ identities and people who identify as transgender and/or gender non-confirming experiecen significantly higher levels of reproductive oppression.     

The values we teach in Our Whole Lives offer a powerful, positive, justice-centered alternative, and many congregations do well with providing Our Whole Lives to children, youth, and sometimes young adults and adults through classes. But the work often stops there. Lifting up principles and themes from Our Whole Lives in worship can help broaden the reach of this powerful curriculum.  

Also, it should be noted that the end goal of organizing for reproductive health, rights, and/or justice is not that every person has the same personal or religious views on abortion. The dominant cultural framework consciously and unconsciously encourages us to think that only a narrow, single perspective is possible. For or against. Pro-access (or pro-choice) and pro-life. To some extent, public opinion polling reinforces this notion by constantly asking people whether or not they think there should be legal access to abortion. The more relevant question is: who should decide? Respect for bodily autonomy is a core principle of reproductive justice, and religious freedom is a core principle of American democracy. Taken together, the result is straightforward: every person should be able to make decisions about their bodies and access healthcare according to their own beliefs and values. Whether or not someone chooses abortion, and how they feel about it, is up to them. The goal is not that everyone feels the same way; the goal is that everyone has access and support for what they need. 

Resources

Area 3: External Action

“If the Supreme Court overturns or guts Roe v. Wade, 26 states or certain or likely to ban abortion.” according to the Guttmacher Institute. That said, it is also critical to understand that Roe does not guarantee access to abortion—it simply places limits on the restrictions that states can impose. For many reasons, many Black, Brown, and Indigenous people have always lacked sufficient access to abortion care. Focusing primarily on the legal right to abortion tends to reinforce a framework centered on the circumstances of wealthier white women. To respond to the needs and call of this moment, we need to center the importance of actual access for all people.  

The good news, perhaps, is that in recent decades, overall public support for abortion has remained relatively stable, and is currently close to its highest point since 1995. According to the Pew Research Center, “Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.” Morevoer, a Washington Post-ABC News poll from November 2021 found that “three-quarters of Americans say abortion access should be left to women and their doctors.” This is reassuring in that 75% of people are able to distinguish between their own beliefs and what decisions should be left up to others, which is what it means to live in a democracy that values religious freedom. 

However, we’re at the dire place we are because the small minority of people who want the state to restrict access to abortion have been much more strategic and much more mobilized that those people–including people of faith–who support access to safe and legal abortion. Put another way, we need a much bigger base. We need a LOT more moderate and progressive people of faith who are willing to speak powerfully and publicly in support of access to abortion and other sexual and reproductive healthcare. Since the opposition to access overwhelmingly comes from Christian-identified individuals and organizations, it’s critical to have  Christian-identified individuals and organizations engaged in public witness and legislative advocacy. Similar to our work on marriage equality, there will be times when we should not be the public face of the work. But we can, and must, still be leaders in ensuring that it happens. 

If the Supreme Court overturns or guts Roe v. Wade–which, sadly, seems likely–the roles and risks will be very different depending on where you are located. Those in states that have drastically reduced or eliminated access will need to make decisions about the risks they are willing to take to help people get access, whether illegally in-state or by transit to other states. Those near low or no access states will have a critical role to play in providing direct support to people traveling to access legal abortion. Those in other higher-access states can provide much needed funds, and potentially education and direct support for medication abortion through video or phone support. 

Resources

Themes/Questions to Address in a Sermon

  • What’s our calling now, in this arena, as a Unitarian Universalist congregation? How is it different than what we’ve done in the past as a UU community?

  • What is the reproductive justice framework? How is it in line with work we’ve done in the past? How is it different and challenging for us? What new potential does it offer?

  • How can we shift our understanding of the cultural/political conflict about abortion to recognize that it is, and has always been, more about control, and racism? Why is it important to recognize this? How can we understand and recognize when we’re policing others, and ourselves? 

  • This is not just a problem that impacts other people somewhere else. How does stigma and shame impact us all? What are its religious roots? How do we counter it? How can we create a space where people feel welcome to bring their whole selves, including their experiences related to sexual and reproductive health? What principles and guidelines can we draw from the Our Whole Lives curriculum into the whole congregation? What values and practices are positive, liberating alternatives to policing others and ourselves? 

  • What actions can we take to make a difference? What’s particularly important for us, given our geographic location? With whom should we partner? What do they want/need from us? How can we work with other UU congregations and/or our UU State Advocacy Network? 

Facts

  • If the Supreme Court overturns or guts Roe v. Wade, 26 states or certain or likely to ban abortion. [Source] 

  • According to the Guttmacher Institute, “states have enacted an astounding 1,313 abortion restrictions since Roe v. Wade was decided.” And 2021 was the worst year on record–since 1973–for the number of restrictions enacted. [Source] 

  • It was about racism first. When what we now call the Religious Right first got started in the early 1970s, the main focus was how religion could be used as a loophole to maintain racially segregated schools in the South. Abortion was not central until after 1978, when the Far Right could no longer use segregation to rally its troops and determined that anti-abortion positions could help win elections. One of the central actors predicted that opposition to abortion would “pull together many of our ‘fringe’ Christian friends.” [Source] 

  • In recent decades, overall public support for abortion has remained relatively stable, and is currently close to its highest point since 1995. According to the Pew Research Center, “Currently, 59% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.” [Source] However, polling also finds that “roughly half of Americans (48%) said having an abortion is morally wrong, while 20% said it is morally acceptable and 31% said it is not a moral issue.” [Source]

  • Here’s a piece of good news. A Washington Post-ABC News poll from November found that “three-quarters of Americans say abortion access should be left to women and their doctors.” 75% of people are able to distinguish between their own beliefs and what decisions should be left up to others, which is what it means to live in a democracy that values religious freedom. However, we’re at the dire place we are because the small minority of people who want the state to restrict access to abortion have been much more strategic and much more mobilized. [Source]  

  • The threat of violence–not just emotional and spiritual violence, but actual physical violence is very real. On New Year’s Eve, a fire–since ruled arson–completely destroyed a Planned Parenthood Health Center in Knoxville, TN. That same health center was attacked in January 2021 as well. [Source] 

Articles and Books

Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion:

General History of Religious Organizing

Eugenics and Unitarianism

Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood. (Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection by Edwin Black, Nov. 9, 2003) 

Jordan never joined a Unitarian church that we’re aware of, but as an adult he took the middle name Starr to indicate his interests in astronomy and to honor his mother’s reverence for Unitarian minister, Thomas Starr King. However, David Starr Jordan was Beacon Press’s best-selling author from 1902-1913. During that period, Beacon published 19 of Jordan's books, more than by any other single author.” [Source]

Stanford announced in October 2020 that it would rename campus spaces named for Jordan. 

“The legal highpoint of the eugenics movement was a Supreme Court decision in the case of Buck v. Bell in 1927, where the Court held that state laws permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.

At that time two Unitarian members of the Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and William Howard Taft voted with the majority, with Holmes writing the decision. …Chief Justice Taft, who would soon serve as president of the National Unitarian Conference, was already a supporter of eugenics.”

-Excerpt from Elite: Uncovering Classism in Unitarian Universalist History by Mark W., Harris Skinner House Books, 2011