Concerned Women for America

A gaggle of Religious Right groups have come out in opposition of Kathleen Sebelius’s nomination as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, releasing a letter [PDF] to Senators asking them to vote against her nomination when it comes up for a vote.

The list of signatories is a who’s who of top-level and lesser known right-wing leaders, including Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, Jim Backlin of the Christian Coalition, Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, Brian Burch of Fidelis, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, and Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Among the reasons cited in opposing her nomination is this:

Governor Sebelius has long close and personal ties to notorious abortionist George Tiller, known for performing late-term abortions in Kansas, include donations from Mr. Tiller of hundreds of thousands of dollars to PACs and organizations controlled by the Kansas Governor. She has also repeatedly interfered in cases brought against Mr. Tiller, including recruiting a candidate to replace the state attorney general who was originally prosecuting the abortion doctor.

Of course, the “state attorney general who was originally prosecuting the abortion doctor” was Phill Kline, who was bounced out of office because of his anti-abortion zealotry and eventually landed a gig teaching at Liberty University. On top of that, Klein was a Republican and Sebelius was a Democrat, so the idea that she would seek a candidate to challenge him is what is traditionally known as “politics.”

As for her supposed ties to George Tiller and her “interference” in the cases against him, it’s worth pointing out that just last week it took an jury a mere forty-five minutes to acquit him of all the charges.

That, coupled with the fact that both of Sebelius’s home state Senators have already endorsed her, means that the Right’s effort to derail her nomination is, at this point, little more than mere grandstanding.

• The Stranger may hate "Family Guy," but finds that "when viewed through the lens of a furious American Family Association, it becomes much more entertaining."
• In entirely predictable fashion, Bill O'Reilly is responding to the outrage over his stalking and ambush of Think Progress blogger Amanda Terkel by lashing out at Think Progress.
• Good As You reports that Washington state Senator Val Stevens has teamed up with Concerned Women For America to fight the "hidden agenda homosexual activists have promoted for more than 35 years."
• Dan Gilgoff is reporting that Randall Terry, who is leading the charge in protesting President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame, has a bit of a bishop problem.
• Cenk Uygur is understandably miffed that supporters of Bobby Jindal are using his voice in a web ad touting Jindal as the GOP's presidential nominee in 2012.

David Brody caught up with Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America following her meeting at the White House yesterday and has posted a short video of an interview he conducted with her and this edited transcript that pretty well covers Wright’s remarks:

“Joshua (DuBois, White House Faith Based Director) is a young and dynamic man and he seems to understand the faith perspective. Our intention with this meeting was to open a dialogue and to ensure that as they are forming their policies and programs that they’re taking into consideration the views of those deeply involved in the faith community and that there also taking into consideration the policies and programs that actually work, that are evidence based that have proof of reducing the number of abortions.”

“We hope that this will be the first of many meetings.”

“It was a very cordial meeting. It was also quite honest. We provided information on the kinds of programs that don’t work in reducing abortions and the programs that do work and so we needed to be very honest in presenting that. It remains to be seen what they will do with that information….the burden now is on them to come up with the kinds of policies that do show respect for the faith based community.”

“I can’t really say I came away with any new information or a new impression. Generally what we heard are the same things that we’ve been hearing…perhaps the information we gave to them was new to them, they’ve not heard it before. I hope that if that’s the case that the information will influence their current positions.”

Wright says their main goal was to give the White House information concerning programs that “actually work” in terms of reducing abortion, by which she means so-called crisis pregnancy centers and regulations and restrictions like parental consent laws and mandatory ultrasounds.

Of course, as we’ve pointed out before there is a key difference between “the need to reduce abortions” and “reducing the need for abortion,” and groups like CWA focus exclusively on the former as they do not recognize the latter and are fundamentally opposed to things like family planning and sex ed.

From Wright’s description of the meeting, it doesn’t sound like they made much headway with the White House, which is good.

But as she says, she hopes to have more meetings and ultimately be able to influence the administration’s positions and get it to embrace the “kinds of policies that show respect for the faith based community.”

The Christian Post and LifeNews have more on the meeting.

Over the last few days, we've written several posts about an upcoming meeting at the White House between Joshua DuBois, head of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and representatives of Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, and other right-wing groups.

Now, in his daily video update, Faith and Action's Rob Schenck reveals that his organization is also trying to set up a meeting with DuBois.

Schenck explains that he has a busy day ahead of him, entailing a meeting with Tim Goeglein, the former Bush Administration aide who was forced to step down after admitting to plagiarism and was recently hired by Focus on the Family to be their chief lobbyist in DC and with whom Faith and Action shares office space. He then has a meeting with the Salvation Army and then another meeting with the leaders of a new Congressional Prayer Caucus and finally a reception with "Christian members of Congress."

Then, around the 2:50 mark, Schenck reveals that they will also be talking to the White House today about a meeting with the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and Josh DuBois.  After a bit of rambling, Schenck says that Christian conservatives are losing credibility because when the opposition says or does the right thing, they are reluctant to commend them.

Schenck says he is "finding some stuff that is really good here and I've quoted President Obama recently on his statement that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. Hey, I 've got to applaud that and I'm using it and I'm complementing him on it and, in fact, using it to reinforce our argument that the sanctity of marriage requires that it be reserved for a man and a woman, exclusively."

Interestingly, before the election the Obama campaign was supposed to participate in an event hosted by Schenck and his group but pulled out at the last minute, which turned out to be a smart move, as Sarah Posner explained:

The meaning of the Declaration of Independence was supposed to take center stage at a forum for religious outreach representatives from both presidential campaigns yesterday, but the lunchtime crowd of conservative activists and congressional staff at the Capitol Hill Club was instead treated to a lineup of speakers tossing out apocalyptic rhetoric about Barack Obama.

The event was sponsored by the Capitol Hill-based Faith and Action's Reese Roundtable, an annual luncheon about the moral meaning of the Declaration of Independence. Faith and Action's motto is "bringing the word of God to bear on the hearts and minds of those who make public policy in America." One of its goals is to "restore the moral foundations of our American culture" through placing Ten Commandments displays in public buildings.

Faith and Action's Rob Schenck, a perennial religious-right adviser and gadfly, moderated and wasted no time in lambasting the Rev. E. Terri LaVelle, the Obama campaign's senior religious adviser, who had committed to attend but cancelled at the last minute. "A snub!" protested Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.

With McCain's conservative-coalitions director Robert Heckman looking on, and at one point chiming in that Obama's recent faith and values outreach was a "colossal flop," Obama was portrayed by speakers as a figure of evil and doom. No one came right out and called him the Antichrist, but the apocalyptic message was clear.

Bernie Reese, the octogenarian founder of the Reese Roundtable, said, "I grew up during [the] days of Hitler; we've almost got a blueprint to what brought Hitler to power. He rode in on an economic crisis and promised the moon to the middle class. He was a man who had glittering rhetoric; he could sit in the room and have his audience in his hand." Alveda King, niece of the civil-rights icon and an adviser to Priests for Life, the militant anti-abortion group, said abortion in the African American community had been done "deliberately, by genocide." We're "beyond chastisement," she went on. "We're in judgment."

"Lord," prayed Johnny Hunter, an African American pastor who gave the benediction, don't let us elect someone who might "bring this nation down."

The Obama campaign didn't want to be seen with Schenck and Faith and Action during the election—good choice—and let's hope that nothing has changed since then.

We have written about Schenck and his ties to a variety of different right wing groups a number of times, most recently when he, Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, and Rep. Paul Brown anointed the door at the Capitol before Barack Obama’s inauguration.  While far from a household name, Schenck has seemingly been becoming more influential over the last few years – he met privately with John McCain during the campaign and even received a VIP invitation to McCain’s announcement that Sarah Palin would be his running mate, where he had the opportunity to speak with both of them.  

He also has a history of harassing Democratic politicians, especially former President Bill Clinton, having been arrested back in 1992 for thrusting a fetus at him during the campaign and being stopped by the Secret Service after confronting him outside of the Washington Cathedral in 1996. He was also deeply involved in the early 1990’s in protesting women’s health clinics, including targeting one where a doctor was eventually assassinated.

Yesterday I wrote about the fact that Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council had been invited to the White House to be part of a discussion on .... well, I'm not sure.

David Brody, who first reported the meeting, said it is to be focused on "the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs," but I am not sure if it is to be focused on the "need to reduce abortions" or, more likely, on "reducing the need for abortion" - and that is a pretty important distinction.

If it is focused on the "reducing the need for abortion," then it should be looking for ways to prevent unplanned pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.  But, of course, if that is the case then there is no need to invite FRC and CWA because they both oppose anything that encourages the use of condoms or family planning services.

On the other hand, if it is focused on "reducing abortions" ... well, then inviting CWA and FRC is a great idea because they have all sorts of ideas on how to do that:

"Funding abortion or abortion providers is one of the worst things that could be done. What the government funds, we get more of," [CWA's Wendy] Wright added. "We hope to begin a dialogue that results in policies which actually work, not just financially benefit certain interest groups like abortion providers.”

"Pregnancy resource centers and regulations on abortion have a terrific track record in helping women choose alternatives to abortion," she continued.

As I said yesterday, these groups have a rather simple solution on how to "reduce abortions": make them illegal or impossible to obtain. And if that is the sort of input the White House thinks it needs, then FRC and CWA will be more than willing to provide it.

But if the White House is looking for ways to reduce the need for abortion, then FRC and CWA have nothing to offer and absolutely no willingness to seek compromise or middle-ground because, frankly, they refuse to admit that there is ever any such need.

So what is the topic of this meeting?  On finding ways to reduce abortions or finding ways to reduce the need for abortion? It's a crucial difference and it would be nice to know just what the Obama administration is bringing these right-wing groups in to discuss.

To say that the Religious Right has been opposed to Barack Obama’s presidency from the moment he was elected would be something of an understatement.

Since taking office, the Right has opposed just about every aspect of his agenda, from his choice of nominees to the economic stimulus legislation. But nothing has outraged them more than reversals of President Bush’s stem cell and “Mexico City” policies.

When Obama reversed the Mexico City policy, the Family Research Council lashed out, saying that while he was for “banning the torture of terrorists” he was signing “an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world” and that because of his action “U.S. taxpayers will be forced to take part in exporting a culture of death.” Concerned Women for America likewise claimed that the moved “offends the morality of millions of Americans, funds abortion efforts in countries where abortion is illegal, and breaks a campaign promise to reduce abortions” and also asked why he was “concerned about the higher moral ground with the terrorists who murder for ‘Allah,’ and yet you won’t honor and obey Christ and defend the defenseless unborn baby.”

When Obama reversed the stem cell policy, CWA’s Wendy Wright called it “politics at its worst,” saying it was “driven by hype" and "fuels the desperation of the suffering, and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science” while FRC said it was “yet another deadly executive order” and “a slap in the face to Americans who believe in the dignity of all human life.”

Given that FRC’s and CWA’s stance regarding life issues is to vehemently oppose anything that does not move the country toward curtailing, and eventually outlawing, of reproductive choice, what is the Obama administration’s best option for dealing with such groups?

Why, inviting them to White House for a discussion on how to reduce the need for abortion, of course:

The Brody File has learned that conservative Evangelical groups will meet with the head of the White House Faith-Based Office on Tuesday.

Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group.

Wendy Wright from CWA sends the following via email to The Brody File:

“The Obama administration says they want to be inclusive and represent all Americans. The White House faith-based office is now tasked with reducing the number of abortions – something that pro-life groups have very good experience in accomplishing. Pregnancy resource centers and regulations on abortion have a terrific track record in helping women choose alternatives to abortion. Funding abortion or abortion providers is one of the worst things that could be done. What the government funds, we get more of. We hope to begin a dialogue that results in policies which actually work, not just financially benefit certain interest groups like abortion providers.”

If the Obama administration thinks that it is going to win support for anything that it does on this issue from groups like CWA and FRC, it is sorely mistaken … which is something they will presumably learn once this meeting takes place.

These are not moderate, open-minded groups looking for common ground – they are militant, anti-choice groups committed to, above all, making abortion illegal everywhere and for everyone, with no exceptions.

It is hard to understand what the administration expects to gain by meeting with such groups to discuss efforts to reduce abortion considering that the only option such groups support is to outlaw them entirely.

Today's best reporting on the Right from around the web:

• Box Turtle Bulletin reports that Nazi Revisionist Scott Lively has talked Ugandan anti-gay activist Stephen Langa and a Ugandan parliamentarian into proposing a law forcing people convicted of homosexuality into ex-gay therapy.
• Via Tips-Q we see that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the passing of Proposition 8 in California as “unacceptable.' Also via Tips-Q we learned that Lou Sheldon has a Prop. 8-related blog post up on The Hill's Congress blog. Why is The Hill providing a platform for Sheldon?
• Sen. Tom Coburn says he'll go to prison before he is forced to perform abortions. Unfortunately for him, Wonk Room points out that "refusing to provide abortions won’t land him in jail or bring him the publicity that often comes with incarceration."
• Good as You highlights the fact that Matt Barber and Concerned Women for America continue to defend Utah Sen. Chris Buttars.
• Pam notes that Peter LaBarbera is scheduled to return to his old stomping grounds at the Illinois Family Institute and the flier announcing it says "for security reasons, please do not bring any bags or purses."
• How is the GOP's Hispanic outreach going? According to Mother Jones, not so well.
• Steve Benen notes that the judiciary is getting tired of The Birthers' antics with today another judge throwing out their lawsuit and mocking "the plaintiffs for being so foolish and wasting the judiciary's time."
• David Neiwert has a great post on Glenn Beck desperately trying to get Sam Webb of the Communist Party USA to declare that Barack Obama is a Communist ally ... and failing miserably.
• Finally, this video is hilarious:

To say that the Religious Right has been opposed to the prospect of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius might be named as Secretary of Health and Human Services since her name was first floated a few weeks back would be something of an understatement.

Back in early February, Concerned Women for America, Operation Rescue, and the Christian Defense Coalition are already on record opposing the nomination and now that the announcement is official, they are ramping up their opposition and being joined by groups like the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, the Susan B. Anthony list, the Catholic League and Americans United for Life and others.

As Ezra Klein explained, their opposition is rooted in Sebelius' purported "ties" to George Tiller:

George Tiller is, in the words of the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, a "late-term abortionist." Closing his clinic has been a main goal of of the Operation Rescue folks. In 1993, in fact, Tiller was shot twice by an anti-abortion activist who'd decided picketing was inefficient.

So what does this have to do with Sebelius? She's met him.

Worse than that: She's had him over for dinner. As the Concerned Women for America wrote, Sebelius "held a private party in the governor's mansion for notorious abortionist George Tiller." That, of course, is the sort of detail that can matter amidst nomination fights. Maybe Sebelius could be blocked.

But this fell apart rather quickly: Tiller and his staff won the evening in a fundraising auction. Nothing personal, but their invitation was, well, nothing personal.

Nonetheless, it is obvious that the Right is going to attempt to make a spectacle out of Sebelius’s nomination, but that doesn't look like it will be easy considering that both of Kansas's Republican Senators, including the ardently anti-choice Sam Brownback, are supporting her:

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts and U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today congratulated Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius on her nomination by President Obama to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“Congratulations to Governor Sebelius on being nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services,” the Senators said. “It’s an honor for the State of Kansas to have an elected official appointed to the president’s cabinet. We are hopeful Governor Sebelius will be a voice for Kansas and rural America at the Department. We look forward to working with her on issues important to the state including a National Cancer Institute Designation at the University of Kansas Cancer Center.”

What is it about the Fairness Doctrine that is causing the Religious Right to lose their minds?  As Marin Cogan pointed out last year, the more she searched for actual evidence that anyone intended to bring it back, the more she had to conclude that it wasn’t going to happen.

But still the Right is up in arms and vowing to do all it can to prevent its return. Christian broadcasters are warning that their programs will be under attack and the word of God is being “opposed at every quarter.” The Family Research Council declares that it would “silence conservative and Christian broadcasters” while Concerned Women for America claims that it would “jeopardize our freedom to share the Gospel.” Focus on the Family says that liberals are trying “to take a huge bite out of the First Amendment” because they are “highly intolerant." The Traditional Values Coalition released a report [PDF] alleging that liberals “want to kick conservative and Christian talk show hosts off the air altogether in order to suppress what they view as ‘hate speech.’” The Media Research Center formed something called the “Free Speech Alliance” for the sole purpose of fighting the Fairness Doctrine and Republicans in Congress even went so far as to introduce legislation that would prevent its return, for which they were hailed as heroes by the Right. And, just in case that fails, the ACLJ announced that it is “formulating our litigation strategy in the event this discriminatory regulation is put in place.” 

As The Politico explained just last week, every time any Democrat so much as mentions the Fairness Doctrine, the Right completely flips out, despite the fact that even supposed supporters of the doctrine have “no plans to introduce any legislation on the issue, nor is it even on the radar”:

But for even the casual listener of conservative talk radio this past week, it would be assumed that federal agents were already en route, pulling radios out of cars or snapping antennas … The passionate reaction on talk radio on this topic, though, reflects a familiar dance between left-leaning politicians and right-leaning talkers.

Every few months, another Democratic leader praises the Fairness Doctrine or talks off the cuff in the Capitol hallway about the government needing to play a role in what’s heard on the public airwaves. Conservative talk show hosts then respond aggressively, rallying the troops from coast to coast with the idea that their favorite shows are about to be taken away by meddling Democrats in Washington.

The Right’s paranoia is so rampant and pervasive that it has now compelled the White House to declare that, even though there is no effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, President Obama would oppose it:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

So congratulations to all of you on the Right who have managed to propel this issue all the way up to the highest levels of government and forced the President of the United States to state that he does not support the non-existent efforts to re-institute a doctrine that nobody has any intention of trying to re-introduce.  

I’d like to think that this will finally put an end to this nonsense, but knowing how the Right operates, the only thing that is certain is that they are not about to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their fear-mongering and fund-raising.