Can you imagine how much greater the scandal would have been if Bill Ayers was actually a Facebook friend of Obama's? That would have been considered hard proof of a relationship, and a sign of the degree of intimacy and access they granted each other. Of course, they weren’t Facebook friends because, indeed, that wasn’t kind of relationship they had. But it was exactly the sort of tie those making the accusation against Obama were hoping for. It’s telling who we Facebook friend, but it can be a real statement for political leaders.

When PBS asked me to debate Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, I did a little research on him. I discovered his Facebook page and with it proof of his insincerity. Newman has been in the news more than most anti-abortion leaders these days because his organization has been ensnared in the murder of Dr. Tiller. Seven years ago, the group moved its headquarters to Wichita—to focus exclusively on protesting Tiller, his employees and his patients. In the days and weeks before the murder, the alleged assassin, Scott Roeder, was in regular touch with Newman’s second in command at Operation Rescue (who herself spent nearly two years in jail for conspiring to bomb and abortion clinic). A post-it note with her name and phone number was stuck to the dashboard of the Roeder’s get-away car.

After the shooting, Operation Rescue was one of the first organizations out with a statement, condemning and distancing itself from the act. The statement, released within a couple of hours after the murder, read,

“We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning… Operation Rescue has diligently and successfully worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see to it that abortionists around the nation are brought to justice. Without due process, there can be no justice.”

Newman has continued to make strong statements against violence. Most recently, in our PBS online debate, Newman claimed the murder of Dr. Tiller, “was not justice, but vigilantism, which must be abhorred by a society that embraces the rule of law over anarchy.”

But, it appears that those in favor of these abhorrent acts are not disqualified as Facebook friends of Newman’s. He may want to distance himself and his organization from violence against providers, but he doesn’t want to go as far as stopping socially networking with individuals who endorse it. Of the twenty people that Wikipedia lists as associated with the Army of God, described as “an extremist anti-abortion organization that sanctions the use of force to combat abortion in the United States,” Newman is Facebook friends with three. (Keep in mind, of the other 17 listed, three are currently in jail for killing abortion providers, and one is incarcerated for attempted murder.)

Dan Holman is one such friend. Holman told CNN he ‘cheered” when he learned of the murder of Dr. Tiller. Holman, of Missionaries to the Pre-born, has long supported violence against abortion providers. He wrote on the website Army of God, “Those who object to the use of force to protect pre-born children do no truly believe in their humanity and worth!” he continued,

“To condemn the use of force to protect unborn children is a tacit admission that their lives are not worth defending. It is to say that that some have more of a Right to Life than others. It is a frank admission that pre-born children are somehow sub-human. If they truly believe the life of the unborn is worth less than the life of the abortionist than why defend the babies at all?”

About Paul Hill, who murdered abortion provider Dr. Dr. John Bayard Britton and James H. Barrett, a volunteer clinic escort. Holman wrote,

“Most of us are not as courageous as Paul Hill. There are no Christian suicide bombers blowing up abortion clinics. We need to confess and acknowledge our lack of love toward God and the pre-born. It is wrong to vilify the courageous acts of Paul Hill to put our own weakness and cowardice in a better light.”

Another Facebook friend Newman shares status updates with is Neal Horsley. The Guardian UK interviewed Horsley after the murder of Dr. Tiller. Horsley states,

“The thing about Tiller's assassination that was really appropriate is that they killed him in church. While he was there collecting the money, counting the money, his blood poured in to those thick carpets in that church. That was a fitting send off."

Matthew Trewhella, the third of Newman’s pro-violence-against-providers Facebook friends, is a signatory of the infamous 1993 letter supporting the murders of abortion providers and calling for all charges be dropped against Michael Griffin, the assassin of Dr. David Gunn. The letter read,

"We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him."

Newman, if he wishes to be taken seriously as an anti-abortion leader who is opposed to violence, should, as a first step, break all ties with the small band of anti-abortion figures who encourage violence. You don’t need a PR genius to tell you that. As I suggest to him in the debate, “You, more than anyone, are poised to help prevent future acts of violence by alienating and condemning these forces or by helping to try to rehabilitate these extremists. Otherwise, all the anti-violence talk is simply meaningless.”

My PBS online debate with Troy Newman is here. They ask you to vote on who won. Please take a look.

There’s a bunch of interesting stories about contraception I came across in my news round-up this morning. The first is the announcement of a new and completely natural birth control pill. Lauren Proper at Empowerher reports on oddly-named Qlaira, “the first “natural” contraceptive pill made from a bioidentical hormone.” It’s been developed by Bayer Schering Pharma and is now available in the United Kingdom and several other European countries. Proper explains, “Bioidentical hormones are formulated from plants and produce effects identical to the actual hormone. This could mean decreased chances for cancer, blood clots and other negative side effects that are present with typical contraceptive pills.”

Weighing in with a cure for another potential negative side effect of birth control, the blogger TaxGirl offers advice to those whose health insurance coverage doesn’t cover contraception. She writes,

“You can absolutely deduct the cost of birth control pills as a medical expense…Almost anything that requires the services of a physician would qualify - IUD, Norplant, etc. Additionally, the costs of sterilization for women and vasectomies for men are deductible. What you won’t see on that list are other non-prescription forms of birth control, like condoms. As a general rule, non-prescription drugs and medicines, as well as “personal use items”, are not deductible.”

Of course, contraception should be covered as any other prescription is and not a personal expense great enough to need to involvement of your accountant. If passed, Prevention First legislation, which was introduced in the Senate on the first day of session (a signal its importance,) includes a provision that would require all health plans that cover prescription drugs cover contraception.

Blast Magazine offered some perspective on news that trace amounts of birth control have shown up in suburban water supplies around the country. According to the post, last year studies were conducted of water supplies in nine states and discovered that 85 man-made chemicals, including medications, were slipping through treatment systems and ending up in our tap water. Some claim the amounts present, “a thimble full of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool,” are not enough to do harm. Yet, Blast Magazine continues,

“But others aren’t so sure. Researchers have found evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of drug residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species, and have been shown to labs to impair human cell function. One of the common culprits is estrogen, much of which is inadvertently released into sewers through the urine of women taking birth control. Studies have shown that estrogen can wreak reproductive havoc on some fish, which spawn infertile offspring sporting a mixture of male and female parts. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh found that human breast cancer cells grew twice as fast when exposed to estrogen taken from catfish caught near untreated sewage overflows. “There is the potential for an increased risk for those people who are prone to estrogenic cancer,” said Conrad Volz, lead researcher on the study.”

The blogger Visinvox offers an interesting account of her weekend tabling for Prevention First legislation and both the pro-life and pro-choice public’s confused response. She writes,

“There were occasions when I would approach somebody who turned out to be a Planned Parenthood supporter and I would explain to them that we were trying to get legislators to focus on measures that would reduce the instances of abortion, they would look at me and say, "Sorry, I'm pro-choice." And I'd have to re-explain that we were with Planned Parenthood and we were also pro-choice, but our goals were to reduce unintended pregnancies etc. My phrasing might have been a little confusing I'll admit, but in my defense this was my first time crowd-canvasing.

There were other times I would approach a group of people who turned out to be very strongly pro-life. They would say things like, "We don't support abortion, sorry." Having taken ques from the pro-choicers who thought we were anti-choice, I went into persuasion mode and explained to them that the goal of the petition was to reduce abortions and that even if we didn't see eye to eye on the matter of choice, it was still important for both sides to focus on preventative measures. Often after reading through the petition, they were often happy to sign on. It's just frustrating how quickly people are to shut down at the mention of Planned Parenthood without taking into account the positive impact we have made that is very much in-line with much of what anti-choicers are trying to achieve.”

In the end, she reports, “the response was overwhelmingly positive.”

Being a part of a marketing campaign for Yaz contraceptive was overwhelming positive for the pop group the Veronicas reports Billboard magazine,

“The partnership between Bayer birth control pill brand Yaz and the Veronicas is considered one of the key factors that broke the Australian electro-pop band in the U.S. market. The advertising and sponsorship deal, now three-plus years strong, was the subject of the final keynote at Billboard and Adweek’s inaugural Music and Advertising Conference in New York.

Before the partnership with Bayer, “Untouched,” the Veronicas’ first single from current album “Hook Me Up,” was in three small radio markets; the single has now sold more than 1.3 million units and has reached No. 17 on the Hot 100. The Veronicas were also invited to tour with the Jonas Brothers last summer, and have just begun a two-month U.S. headlining tour.”

Lisa Origliasso and her twin sister are The Veronicas. Lisa explained, “We thought it was cool. All these Disney acts are sponsored by, I don’t know, My Little Pony or something, and here we are with a birth control pill.” Here's the Yaz ad that made the Veronicas,

This Sunday marks the 44th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that granted married couples the right to use contraception. It has also become an occasion anti-contraceptive operatives have seized in an effort to scare women from using birth control. This weekend marks the second year of The Pill Kills campaign which has grown to become, the organizers boast, an "International Demonstration Against Birth Control."

The campaign materials explain that,

"Pro-lifers in 21 states and four countries will participate in Protest the Pill Day ‘09: The Pill Kills Women. They will gather at Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s largest abortion and birth control providers, at pharmacies and at birth control sellers the nation over. They will expose the tragic effects these chemicals have on women including blood clots, heart attacks and strokes."

In its second year, there are notable changes with the campaign. For example, last year's "The Pill Kills" mission was to convince Americans that the most commonly used forms of birth control, like the standard birth control pill, were really abortion methods. This year the campaign is trying to scare women from using birth control by claiming it will kill them. The campaign targets the regular birth control pill in particular.

So, let's, as an exercise, accept their arguments. Hormonal contraception causes abortions and kills women, gotcha. So, then, we're okay using non-hormonal forms of birth control like the diaphragm, condom, cervical cap, and spermicides? Actually, the organizers aren’t on record anywhere in favor of methods that keep sperm and egg apart. In fact, it appears impossible to find a single instance in which any pro-life group has anything good to say about any birth control method except natural family planning—a technique most notable for its high failure rate. Even the lowly condom disturbs them.

So, when they aren’t reorienting the science to claim that birth control is abortion, they're second favorite technique is to promote--with great hysteria--that birth control is unsafe. As Dr. David Grimes, one of the world’s leading experts on contraception, puts it “Some anti-abortion groups describe a subtle blend of fake claims and real, but exaggerated, risks to frighten women. Only those very knowledgeable can tease out which are which. Ironically, the net effect of this campaign to discredit contraception is more unplanned pregnancies and, of course, more abortions.”

A classic example is the website for Physicians for Life which lists not one positive item about birth control in its numerous sections devoted to the subject. Instead, its headlines read: “The Pill Puts Women at Much Higher Risk of HIV and Other STDs”, “Gel to Stop STDs Holds Empty Promise”, “Negative Effects of Vasectomy”, “New Research Shows Dangers of Condoms in HIV Prevention”, “Oral Contraceptives May Reduce Sense of Smell”. The homepage for Pro-Life America.com proclaims: “Condom Warnings—They Don’t Work!”

The American Life League, the lead organizer of "The Pill Kills" day, distributes scare pamphlets on every form of birth control. They are designed to look and read just like the ones you’d find in your doctor’s office. Each explains why you shouldn’t use a birth control method. One entitled “Answers to your Questions about Condoms and Spermicides” only lists the potential and rare negative side effects of both methods and offers no description of the benefits of either. The pamphlet ends with this message “Condoms and spermicides fail to prevent the conception of babies, and they are potentially harmful! Be good to yourself. Don’t use condoms and spermicides.” The only three sources they cite in the endnotes section of the pamphlet are 1.) A pro-life book opposing every birth control method 2.) An outspoken pro-life physician 3.) A condom fact sheet produced by themselves.

ALL is unapologetically against every single form of birth control, claims the most commonly used forms cause abortions, and defines its legislative goal to include “a legal ban on abortifacient birth control.” They led a campaign which defeated federal contraceptive coverage legislation. In their efforts to prevent federal employees from receiving contraceptive coverage, Judie Brown, A.L.L. President, explained “we have been working for over a year to prove that prescription contraceptives have nothing to do with a woman’s health and well-being but are recreational drugs that prevent fertilization and abort children”. She elaborates, “Depo-provera, Norplant, the IUD and the pill can kill tiny boys and girls and it is imperative that the government get out of the deadly birth control business and take action to protect all innocent human beings equally—without discrimination.” In 1996, A.L.L. picketed Searle Pharmaceutical Company just because it manufactures the standard birth control pill. One can safely say the American Life League’s desire to ban birth control is equally intense as its campaign against legal abortion. Not only does ALL promote, along with most other right wing pro-life groups, that birth control is abortion, they also put forth that any attempt to prevent pregnancy during sex is tantamount to having an abortion. They explain in Chapter 97,

“The connection between artificial contraception and abortion is crystal clear. Once we break the connection between sex and procreation, we have denied God's will. Once we have denied His will once, it becomes easier and easier to ignore His plan for our lives. When we use artificial contraception, any pregnancy that results will be viewed as a "contraceptive failure," a stigma that is passed on to the child. He or she is no longer a precious gift from God, but a failure, and, in our society, failure cannot be tolerated…Contraception cannot be separated from abortion. In fact, anyone who debates on the topic of abortion will inevitably be drawn to the topic of artificial contraception over and over again, especially in the post-Roe era of pro-life activism. Therefore, every pro-life activist should understand the many relationships between abortion and artificial contraception. How does contraception lead to abortion? Quite simply, they are virtually indistinguishable in a psychological, physical, and legal sense…Those individuals who use artificial contraception take the critical step of separating sex from procreation. Contraception not abortion was the first step down the slippery slope.”

According to ALL, trying to prevent a pregnancy is indistinguishable from trying to end one. They believe that avoiding an abortion is somehow the first step in having an abortion.

Each of these sermons and all of their national campaigns serve an objective which is, at its heart what the right wing pro-life movement believes sex should be all about. And the never shy Mrs. Brown, is eager to lay that out by explaining,

"Healthy women do not need to be immunized from their own children. Rather, men and women who participate in sexual intercourse need to know that children are an intended purpose of intercourse, and parents should therefore act to responsibly care for and protect their pre-born children."

This is the ideological prism through which to best understand the anti-contraception campaigns. In actuality, these efforts punish people for having the type of sex they define as contrary to God's wishes. Pregnancy is, according to them, what sex is for.

In our pain, anger and profound sadness over the murder of Dr. Tiller, pro-choice people risk losing an opportunity to see a better day as a country and a movement. In the wake of our loss, it is tempting to continue to categorize in one fixed way all who oppose abortion. To do so would be easy but also foolish. We must admit and accept that not all who are opposed to abortion are the same. Especially since a new movement of pro-lifers has extended a hand in search of a better way.

Yesterday offered a unique opportunity to make this distinction. Alexia Kelley, co-founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Each of the eleven federal agencies has an Office for Faith-based and Community Partnerships that reports to the White House Office of Faith-based Initiatives. Kelley has been appointed as the liaison for HHS.

Moments after the announcement, John O'Brien, president of the pro-choice group Catholics for Choice, released a statement calling the Kelley appointment "a defeat for reason and logic." He continued, "The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that," but "to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion... really beggars belief."

HHS has been called "ground zero in the culture wars" for good reason. Its policies strike at the heart of our most heated social disagreements, particularly those between pro-choice and pro-life groups. HHS oversees the FDA, which approves new contraceptive and abortion methods; the CDC, which promotes disease prevention initiatives on STDs including HIV; and Title X, the nation's contraception program for the poor, among others. One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration was the influence it granted the anti-abortion, anti-contraception movement on HHS policy and functions.

O'Brien's complaint is that the choice of Kelley, given her previous role overseeing a Catholic, anti-abortion organization, puts important social policies in danger of being hijacked by those same Bushian forces. But Kelley is not the Bush-styled pro-lifer of yore. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which Kelley founded, is a progressive organization that has also played a primary role in instigating a nationwide discussion of common ground on abortion. Her group has championed policies aimed at preventing the need for abortion, policies that have been identified as those pro-choice people can support too. It would be a mistake to group Kelley among anti-abortion operatives who snub opportunities to improve the relationship between pro-choice and pro-life communities, and who refuse to do anything to reduce the need for abortion. Her group has worked for policies that can reduce the need for abortion, work that has offended many hard-line anti-choice groups and individuals. To date, she has dedicated her career to finding shared solutions and minimizing this debilitating national conflict.

In November of 2008, Kelley's group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, released its study, "Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors," which found that "Analysis of nationwide data suggests that the economic status of pregnant women factors prominently into their abortion decision. Public policies that provide assistance and support to low-income families are rarely framed as ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. However, the findings from this study suggest that a two standard deviation increase in economic assistance to low-income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate in the 1990s. Across the entire United States, this translates into roughly 200,000 fewer abortions. Further, higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 21% lower abortion rate; and lower poverty rates were correlated with 10% reduction in the abortion rate."

The report concluded, "Elected officials can utilize effective and appropriate socioeconomic public policies to reduce abortions. These include: promoting policies that increase male employment; lower the poverty rate; provide funding for child care for working women; and increase economic assistance to low-income families. Legislation aimed at these goals can effectively reduce abortion in America."

This is a revolutionary leap in pro-life thought, a dramatic break from the 36-year-long drumbeat by the right-wing anti-abortion movement; that segment has single-mindedly focused on restricting and illegalizing abortion. In fact, the Catholics in Alliance report admits, "Our analysis finds that state laws regulating abortion had little systematic impact on the abortion rate in the 1990s. The one exception may be Medicaid funding. Our analysis consistently finds that Medicaid funding for abortions increases the abortion rate - a finding consistent with earlier research - though this effect is never statistically significant. If Medicaid funding does in fact increase the abortion rate, this result is nonetheless consistent with the main the implications of our study suggesting that the abortion rate is sensitive to economic factors."

Kelley is a new style pro-lifer, one who believes a progressive agenda will produce pro-life results. In January 2009, she wrote in an op-ed published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Voters are looking for a new path forward. The question is, do we have the political and moral will to make it happen? People of faith have a particular responsibility to both collaborate with and challenge the new administration. It's long past time for all of us to move from rhetoric and division to results."

Make no mistake, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is a Catholic organization that accepts the Church's position on abortion and contraception. But under Kelley's leadership, its efforts were spent exploring an array of policies that succeed at reducing the need for abortion. The organization has taken a notably passive role towards the church's dictates. It has not worked to restrict abortion or make contraception less available, approaches most other anti-abortion and Catholic groups focus on exclusively.

But unlike some of the loudest voices in that movement, she believes the solution rests at the end of a new path that can be entered together. Even if some way along that path we revisit conflicting convictions. The White House has indicated that HHS will be the department that will enact many of the common ground policies that the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, working with the White House Council on Women and Girls, is currently helping to identify. And while Kelley's new focus is not exclusively on reducing the need for abortion - the Office of Faith-based Initiatives is also focused on poverty reduction, health care reform, and encouraging responsible fatherhood - Kelley will help shepherd, not set, the White House's common ground agenda on abortion through HHS. It's fitting that, as someone who helped spark the common ground effort, she will now help see it through to safety.

Pro-choice people need to improve the national dialogue on the abortion issue. We can lower the vitriol. We can expose the anti-abortion groups that oppose all the proven ways to reduce the need for abortion. We must isolate those that only stoke the coals of hatred in this conflict and, especially those who create the inflamed environment that inspired Dr. Tiller's murderer. The vast majority of self-described "pro-life" Americans abhor the violence, want to move past the conflict and have both sides work together to find common ground. The American pro-life public has longed for leaders like Kelley and, the truth is, so have we.

Today, Will Saletan took a shot at me in his Slate column, Human Nature, lecturing me on common ground in the context of the Tiller murder. Below in my response...

Dear Will,

First off, very glad to know that common ground is here to stay, the proof of which is that you're finally on the bandwagon, and, let's face it, you only jump on wagons once the entrance gets crowded. As another example let's consider your realization several months ago that the pro-life movement is really about fighting contraception now. Those of us whose work you've been skimming for years now have been arguing that for at least five years, see in this regard my book, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America. In fact, I know you've seen it since you recommend it. I have been disappointed that you chose this moment to finally cite a stray comment by me rather than refer to the ideas in my book which, I have long noted with pride, you have ably popularized.

Indeed, Will, you have been for a long time an able popularizer of others' original thinking. Your deficit as a writer on this subject has long been an inability to connect emotionally, to feel one way or the other the closeness and the poignancy of important events. Perhaps one disadvantage in making a personal connection is that you primarily quote, refer to and seemingly write for the brotherhood - andrew sullivan, russell douthat, etc., all talented pundits, though I've often wondered why a woman never made it into your reflections on abortion.

Let's leave aside the cheap shot that you have made above - and you know it. As one who's actually been working on the issue of common ground for years, I welcome you to the fold. Just as a point of future reference, in 2003, long before it became the issue de jour, I co-wrote an op-ed with an pro-lifer for the New York Times, entitled "The Right to Agree." I have been calling for common ground loudly ever since.

In this regard, I have what I hope will be an important announcement. Beginning next week, I will be moderating an ongoing common ground forum on RHRealitycheck.org. This is something that has been in the works since before the election. Here we will actually bring together important voices on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides. We will discuss, despite the real pain that it causes both sides, the possibility of coming together on at least some difficult issues. Here we will be addressing the issues from inside our two communities not, as you do, from a stony remove - I'm tempted to say from on high, but won't. And just so you know my common ground work has put me in touch with the most capable and thoughtful people on the pro-life side, those who are as aghast as we are by the Tiller murder.

In any case, I invite you to visit our discussion on. I'm sure you will find fertile ground to till.

And while speaking about you and fertile ground, I need to point out the important point you miss is that the murder of Dr. George Tiller is a deep, and perhaps abiding wound for the pro-choice side. Since you may not communicate with many intimates in that movement perhaps you've missed the profound rage that this senseless act has sown across the pro-choice spectrum. And in fact risks returning us to more comfortable, long established battle lines. My intent in that LA Times article was to express what many are feeling in the pro-choice community, not to endorse it. I spoke to the reporter for over an hour and am not pleased that that was the line that he chose - but the media is the media. The larger point is that your homilies about thinking bigger thoughts are just the kind of abstractions that deprive your work of an edge and a resonance that might extend its influence beyond the small band inside the beltway. Given your talents as a writer I urge you to take the plunge and try to understand the emotions that have been stirred as well as their consequences.

Cristina Page