People facing death don't run towards it, as many of Kevorkian's detractors believe, suggesting that by giving patients more options as they face death or actually assisting them, somehow creates a culture of death. As Kevorkian's own death proves, most people fight until the end, but in rare circumstances, what he knew was that suffering can be too much. Jack Kevorkian alleviated that suffering for many which is why he is now a household name.

Kevorkian was a pioneer, a lone-ranger, taking up a cause with a relentless zeal that, regardless of your views on physician-assisted dying, one has to admire. His message was simple: in an increasingly mechanized and technological age, modern medicine is trapping many sick people in a life of suffering and torture that can be alleviated if they choose. His tactics were crass, made for media, anathema to those working to pass death with dignity laws.

In seven years of work I did supporting and promoting Oregon's Death with Dignity law between 1997-2006, Jack Kevorkian was a convenient foil. There would be no Oregon, Washington, or Montana Death with Dignity laws without Jack Kevorkian, largely because proponents of those laws were able to distance themselves from Kevorkian and chart a moderate path involving all stakeholders. Oregon's law, the model of patient driven end-of-life care, stands today as a testament to statecraft. It is a careful and elegant use the law's neutrality to create a safe-harbor for patients and doctors to honor last wishes, using a clear set of guidelines bringing to light a practice that existed underground and unregulated, thus inaccessible to most people.

Jack Kevorkian would have been arrested under Oregon's law, but his dedication to alleviating suffering of those who sought his help, was the reason Oregon's law could win voter approval.

His life made a difference not only to the people he assisted, but to those who now have legal access to death with dignity laws, and to millions more for whom the end-of-life journey continues to improve as more attention is paid to hospice, palliative care, pain management -- putting the patient first. There is still a long way to go.

Many people believe only God gives and takes life, and somehow they turn modern technology and medicine into God, not understanding that what many people want is not more treatment, but less, not more quantity of time but to be able to enjoy, free from heavy sedation, whatever time they have left. Life's pleasures get pretty simple as it comes to an end, especially for those who've battled terminal illness. Jack Kevorkian understood this, and he understood he wasn't playing God, but rather responding to a patient's suffering and desperate pleas for help.

As Baby Boomers continue to watch their parents, friends or themselves enter into this phase of life and recognize modern medicine's shortcomings, there will be calls for more reforms, and passage of laws like those in effect in the Pacific Northwest. These laws honor Kevorkian's zealotry, even if he didn't think they went far enough, and the movement that grew up not around him, but stood in relief from him, ensures the safety, care and comfort of terminally-ill people seeking relief.

The Oregon data continues to show how rarely and carefully the law is used, its greatest asset the peace of mind patients receive from knowing they have an option of last resort should their suffering become intolerable. For many people, Jack Kevorkian's crusade offered them that same peace of mind, knowing someone was fighting for them.

We often need a crazy-genius-zealot to wake us up. Jack Kevorkian played that part well. Rest In Peace.

Can we resurrect common sense more generally?

Andrew Sullivan and Ezra Klein have each advanced simple proposals to, either voluntarily or by mandate, have Americans fill out living wills. Klein suggests it as a requirement for Medicare, Sullivan says it is something everyone over 40 should just do.

Many organizations encourage people to fill out the simple living will template each state provides. There are various reports on the prevalence of living wills, most hovering near 36 percent of Americans, perhaps as high as 70% of seniors. But even after nearly 30-plus years of encouragement there are still issues with compliance by doctors and hospitals. The idea is right and making sure everyone has clear advance directives could represent significant health care cost savings to the government. This is what government can do and the private sector and human nature can't or won't: encourage adoption to increase prevalence by citizens and compliance by medical staff. People don't want to think or talk about death, so they don't act. Many doctors and hospitals view death as failure, and treatment as profit, so they don't comply with patient wishes in all cases. Mort Kondrake wrote in January suggesting that people spending their final days in hospice rather than intensive care could save up to $50 billion per year. "But the opportunity to choose," Kondrake wrote, "is even more important."

The fact that government requires everyone to have certain forms, for example, birth certificates, social security cards, drivers license/identification, doesn't seem onerous or invasive. Why should a form that clearly spells out the choices we want when faced with death? It is each individuals' choice what to put on the form; the form itself is neutral, as the government should be in all personal and private life decisions.

As Klein writes, "You could say cost is no object, and neither is pain or quality of life. You could make whatever choice, and offer whatever instructions, you want. You just have to do it. You have to make the decision."

The voluntary end-of-life counseling originally included in President Obama's Health Care Reform would have helped people understand this process and guide them in filling out these forms. It was dropped because of political demagoguery by the far-right. Sullivan acknowledges that his modest voluntary proposal won't achieve as much savings without government's nudging when he writes, "... frankly, I see no reason why the government shouldn't nudge you to make arrangements ahead of time given that others will be forced to pay the cost."

On a day when we learned the president of the United States is in fact an American, it seems as though common sense might make a come back, and so the timing of the proposals from Sullivan and Klein provide an opportunity to make another choice, besides how we want to die: how we want to live in and govern our democracy. Putting an end to the extremist's nonsense and allowing the government to make simple cost-saving policy changes like those suggested here, seems a good first step.

 

In the restless, dark hours before the game between his 13th-seeded Eagles and No. 4 Louisville, a pair of teams from opposite ends of Kentucky basketball royalty, Tyndall could not sleep. His mind flashed forward to the possibilities. If the deficit is one or two, he told himself in the still of the night, the senior guard Demonte Harper is shooting a 3.


Tyndall shared that vision during a timeout. Morehead State trailed, 61-59, with 23 seconds left. But Harper was 0 for 5 from the 3-point line. It was the junior Terrance Hill, 5 for 6, who had unexpectedly kept the Eagles aloft in the second half. No matter. Tyndall followed his head and his heart.

"He said, 'I know exactly where I'm going to,'" Harper recalled. "'I'm going to put it right in your hands, Demonte. I don't want you to drive it to the hole. I want you to pull up and win the game off a 3-pointer.'"

When Harper took the floor, he allowed himself to dream of when he was a child, playing imaginary games with the clock ticking down. And down. And down. Swish.

Harper's shot from well beyond the top of the key with 4.2 seconds left gave Morehead State the lead that held up.

"I think when we told him what we did in the huddle, it gave him an incredible amount of confidence to go make his play," Tyndall said. "To his credit, he did."

And then 10 years ago, his mother introduced Faried to Manasin Copeland, the woman that would become her wife.


"I think people have an aura about them and the first time I met her, I thought, 'I like this lady," Faried said. "And when they got married, that showed me what commitment is all about, that there are people out there that can commit, even though for them it really has been the worst of times. I look at them, what they've been through and I think, 'Wow. That's amazing.' They're amazing to me."

The justices awarded a "win" to Phelps inside the court, but Al Snyder beats Westboro Baptist Church hands-down in the equally important court of public opinion. No one will embrace the Phelps' message of hate because of this ruling, the justices unanimously agreed their speech is vile. But many millions of Americans have re-examined their hearts and beliefs because Al Snyder had the courage of his convictions to stand up to the Phelps. Al Snyder's efforts make America a better place because more people are exercising their free speech to counter the Phelps hate.

The law says free speech trumps all, and apparently leaves no remedy for private citizens, distinguished from public figures, who are harmed by speech that crosses the line into harassment. In his dissent, Justice Alito hit exactly the right tone, "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims." Alito articulates an ability to protect private citizens from harm, noting the targeted nature of the Phelps' attacks against Snyder in press releases, pickets and an online diatribe after Matthew Snyder's funeral. In each instance, the Phelps personally attacked an honorable family who gave the ultimate sacrifice to their country.

The Phelps will continue to picket funerals, taunting mourners and disrupting one of the most sacred rites every family, of every belief, experiences. They will not be bankrupted by the $5 million tort judgment for the intentional infliction of emotional distress that a jury of their peers awarded Mr. Snyder in the lower court.

But because of Al Snyder's courage and grace, seeing this case through to the US Supreme Court five years after his son's funeral, more Americans are now aware of exactly what hate looks like: furrowed brow, aged beyond years, narrow beady eyes, pinched faces and foaming spittle in the corners of angry mouths. Hate is rabid. Americans know what hate sounds like: pitched tones screaming absolutes rather than genuinely listening to the heart of another. Hate knows no compassion. Because of Al Snyder's dignity, Americans now know what hate feels like: abusive and intrusive, both emotionally and psychologically -- just as the Phelps children experienced at the hands of their father growing up, as has been documented.

Far from winning converts, the country is turning away from the Phelps' hate. Counter-protests are now more common than they were when Snyder filed his case. Wherever the Phelps go the counter-protests are usually much larger than the half-dozen or so Phelps family members picketing. Online efforts like Phelps-a-thon.com and others raise money for anti-bullying and pro-LGBT organizations whenever and wherever the Phelps picket, giving people all over the country an opportunity to counter hate with love. Another opportunity to push back against the Phelps, as Al Snyder is now faced with the ultimate insult added to his injury, having to pay the court costs of the Phelps, is to contribute here as a way of thanking him for exposing the Phelps as the small-minded bigots they are.

No doubt, there is celebrating in the isolated Phelps family compound in my hometown of Topeka, Kansas. To them, their hate has been vindicated. This family of several reprimanded and disbarred lawyers, with a long history of abusing the legal system, triumphed in the highest court in the land. They believe they are famous, but infamous seems more accurate.

The Snyders in Westminster, Maryland, are obviously disappointed, but not for the loss of the millions of dollars awarded by the lower court. Mr. Snyder's sorrow is for the families all across America who now will experience what he did -- the taunting, invasion of privacy, and intrusion into one of life's most sacred moments.

Al Snyder wasn't the least bit concerned about the money except for the fact it might have deprived Westboro Baptist Church from ever disrupting another family's mourning. The legal remedy he sought was not for private gain, but public good. While the court's decision strongly affirms free speech, and that is certainly in the public good, Snyder's concern was that the court's decision gives all rights to those who threaten civility by targeting private citizens with hate, turning funerals into spectacles. It seems the law reserves no rights to Americans who, like him and his family, simply want to bury a loved one and grieve privately.

Legal scholars and others will agree or disagree on the fine points of the law, but in the battle for hearts and minds, Al Snyder won the day he took a stand, and millions of Americans stand with him today while the Phelps grow ever more isolated. That's progress.



Here is what needs to be said loud and clear--and religious leaders should be leading this conversation in death-phobic America:

We merely give death more power by pretending we can evade or escape it. And what's more, it is horribly unfair to friends and family members for those of us who are growing older not to make sure that we have our affairs in order by way of clear health care directives.

Really, there are two issues here—end-of-life counseling and "rationing"—that ought to be debated separately. Both have big cost implications, but counseling also can be part of a cultural change, already under way, that leads terminally ill people and their families to choose a humane "good death," avoiding painful (and expensive) heroic measures to keep patients alive.

Voluntary counseling sessions as part of a Medicare beneficiary's annual physical could lead a senior, healthy or ill, to equip himself or herself with an advanced medical directive ("living will") and complete a durable power of attorney appointing a surrogate to make medical decisions in case of incapacity.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that nearly 70 percent of older adults have living wills detailing their end-of-life wishes.

The use of hospice care at the end of life—where patient comfort and access to family is emphasized over merely keeping the patient's heart beating—also has increased significantly.

There are significant savings to be had by opting to spend one's last days in a hospice as opposed to an intensive care unit—perhaps $50 billion a year nationally—but the opportunity to choose is what's even more important.

President Obama is asking Americans to seek common ground on one of the most controversial issues of our time, abortion. Knowing we don't all agree, Obama asks that we agree to disagree, with civility, recognizing the dangerous place the extremism surrounding this debate has taken our politics.

For the entire political life of many people around President Obama's age, the politics of abortion has seemed intractable, uncompromising, bitterly divisive. The first political race I watched closely, at 11, ended with Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas using pictures of aborted fetuses on door hangers in heavily Catholic precincts to defeat Dr. Bill Roy, an obstetrician, Congressman and Catholic himself. Dole won re-election by a handful of votes in 1974 on the politics of insinuation.

Thirty-five years later, Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in his Lutheran church because he performed legal abortions, also in Kansas, the site of many far-right battles in those intervening years. Tiller is the latest victim of extremism on the far-right that has its roots in the political rhetoric started in that first post-Roe election.

Many people on the right distance themselves from anything having to do with clinic violence, but still have their picture taken with politicians whose rhetoric foments it.

So why is RH Reality Check, a site founded and dedicated to promoting progressive ideas about the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health, even engaging this discussion about common ground?

We believe that by bringing voices from the center and right of center to mix with the leading voices of the progressive movement promoting sexual and reproductive health, our online community can play a small role in allowing a new way to look at these issues to emerge. It won't be easy.

We are not defining, or buying into, anyone's definition of common ground. We are facilitating a discussion that we hope will allow all people to think differently about sexual and reproductive health.

Is it possible that in President Obama's election, Americans have a chance to heal the body politic from the divisiveness the abortion issue has caused for a generation or more? We don't know, but one thing is certain: it won't happen if we don't try.

We believe RH Reality Check is well positioned to expand this dialog to be more inclusive while holding to our progressive roots and respecting those who believe differently but genuinely seek common ground. In the wake of the Tiller assassination, there may be no better time to ask people to think anew about how we all communicate these issues.

It is, after all is said and done, simply a choice we have before us, to continue the old paradigm of well worn and bitter divide, or stop and take a deep breath or two, and choose differently.

We are asking people from all political perspectives to remain open to the possibility that we can let go of the acrimony that brought us to this moment and envision a time when these most personal life decisions are no longer used for political manipulation, or domestic terrorism.

The truth is, most Americans have already found common ground.

The best and brightest minds working in philanthropy, non-profits and NGO's, advocacy, law, health care, research, politics and media, have invested tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the most sophisticated public opinion research. Staggering sums that could be used to actually help women and children, not just hypothesize about how demographic groups respond to framing or word choice.

Most legitimate surveys, right, left, and non-partisan, indicate Americans are closer to consensus on many social issues than our politics indicate, which doesn't mean that everyone agrees. But it does mean we should move beyond questions of legality versus prohibition, toward policies that promote safety, health, responsibility, respect, and rights. Our energy should focus on making sure all Americans have access to factual information and education, reliable prevention and reproductive health care with the recognition that sexually healthy societies foster respect for everyone. Choices that are made from a place of respect and facts will naturally be better than those made from fear or misinformation. Biology is easier than wisdom and we should focus on helping people understand how to make better choices, understanding not denying human nature.

In the middle, away from the passions of the right or left, most Americans are already building common ground around shared understanding, compassion and empathy for the journey their neighbors are on, hoping that when their family faces difficult life decisions, others will be similarly supportive. By listening to voices genuinely seeking common ground, RH Reality Check hopes to provide a platform for civil discussion. We know the bitterness will continue on some levels, we only seek to expand the potential for something new to emerge, to remain open to the possibility that we can choose a healing path that could change the way we all discuss these issues in a healthy, respectful way, thus allowing us to see sexual and reproductive health in a new light.

We hope you too will choose a path that can lead to real change and give this discussion a chance.

Be the change you seek.

Originally posted at RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

Pastor Rick Warren is right about one thing, gay rights is a humanitarian issue and a human rights issue. The problem is he offered those comments in defense of retaining the privilege of heterosexual marriage, not as a result of the sentencing of nine men in Senegal to eight years in prison.

The Associated Press reports:

Nine men, including a prominent activist, have been convicted of homosexual acts and sentenced to eight years in prison, a gay rights group said Thursday.

Diadji Diouf, who heads an organization that provides HIV prevention services to gay men in Senegal, and the others were arrested Dec. 19 in a raid on Diouf's apartment.

The men were sentenced Wednesday for unnatural acts and criminal conspiracy, said Joel Nana, Africa research and policy coordinator with the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission in Cape Town, South Africa.

"This is the first case that we've heard of in Senegal where people actually got sentenced," Nana said. He called the sentences long and harsh. Diouf's organization, AIDES Senegal, provides condoms and HIV treatment out of his home.

The arrests came just weeks after Senegal hosted an international AIDS conference that included gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender participants.

"It is a strong message of hatred, a strong message of division when we know it is critical at this point to address HIV in these communities," Nana said.

Senegal, a primarily Muslim nation in West Africa, is one of 38 countries on the continent that criminalize homosexual acts, Nana said. South Africa prompted continent-wide controversy in 2006 when it became the first African country to legalize gay marriage.

By contrast Pastor Warren, often lauded for his work with HIV/AIDS and in particular in Africa, essentially said that because gay people were such a small percentage of the population, they should not be allowed to marry, adding, "This is not even just a Christian issue. It's a humanitarian and human issue."

Warren also said, "Some people feel today that if you disagree with them then that's hate speech. Either if you disagree with them you either hate them or you're afraid of them. I'm neither afraid of gays nor do I hate gays. In fact I love gays but I do disagree with some of their beliefs."

Christianity is a belief, a choice. Sexuality is gift from God, for believers. I am gay, I don't "believe" I'm gay, and I never had a choice, for which I thank God everyday. And in spite of many reasons to turn my back on faith as many have, I continue to believe Jesus has a bigger vision than Rick Warren of how we should treat our fellow humans.

The distance between Rick Warren and the law in Senegal that has sentenced these nine gay HIV activists is measured in inches, not miles. I have defended President-elect Obama's decision to reach out to Warren, from a position of strength that Obama has in his own beliefs and to attempt to model civility.

It is up to Warren to move toward Obama, and he can start by denouncing this sentencing -- as a humanitarian and human rights issue -- and working to see that laws in the nations his missions work in are changed so that all God's children are treated equally. Perhaps in all his work on AIDS Pastor Warren has yet to realize that it is the shame and stigma put on sex and sexuality by people like him that is at the core of the rampant spread of the disease, and that gay children who are loved, embraced and celebrated with an option of loving committed relationships -- as opposed to growing up living in fear and shame -- would make wise decisions about their sexual health. We see where thousands of years of stigma has gotten us. Could it be we are supposed to learn something from all the disease, like how to treat each other better?

Behind the Mask is a group that monitors human rights abuses of lesbian, gay, bi and transgender people throughout the continent of Africa. You can learn more about Senegal's discrimination here. Will someone please forward that link to Pastor Warren and urge him to make a real humanitarian response, not use Christianity to fight to protect privilege. Historically that hasn't worked so well.

I pray. Everyday. Sometimes several times. This week begins a twelve day feast of the birth of Christ in my faith tradition, and it happens amidst other celebrations of light in the darkness in every faith. It is a good time to remember that light starts within each of us and spreads as we respect it in ourselves and others, no matter how challenging that may be. Some might say that it is in dark moments of challenge that we are meant to discover the light.

I'm also gay, so this holiday season has been consumed with a roller coaster of emotion and rage at the selection of Pastor Rick Warren to lead a prayer at Barak Obama's inauguration, where the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery will also pray.

Until January 20th, I will be praying that those of us who disagree with the selection of Rick Warren will not compound the challenges we face on our journey toward equality by being disrespectful, booing during prayer, or otherwise thinking that this moment is anything but what Obama intended -- modeling civility from a position of strength and conviction in his own progressive ideas about sexual and reproductive health and rights. I will pray that we see through the darkness toward the light within each of us, the light that allows us to see more compassionately those we don't understand or definitely disagree with, yes, even those who would deny our very existence. In demanding equality we are claiming our right to journey through life on our own terms. To achieve equality we must not deny others in our effort to be recognized.

Obama is not moving toward Rick Warren and social conservatives as Congressional Democrats have attempted to do by hushing progressives clamoring for changes to many policies on sexual and reproductive health. Instead Obama demonstrates that progressive ideas on gay issues, sex ed, contraception and abortion are moral choices. He invites Warren to join him, even while disagreeing on gay rights and abortion, to find new common ground. When news of this broke, I noted that the challenge was now Warren's to lead hard-right social conservatives past partisanship and bitter divide that has characterized gridlock in Washington for much of the past 30 years, to a new place of civility that Obama is attempting to create in our politics.

These are generational changes we are participating in and they are being led and defined by arguably the most progressive new administration in history. Obama recognizes that to get movement on the policies we must change, our democracy requires change as well -- this was the premise of his campaign -- and it is the surest path toward full equality strategically. Democracy is not designed to produce instant reward, does not offer immediate gratification, is not about wholesale change. It is messy, takes time and most importantly requires we understand that we must do the careful, respectful work of education to bring people who fear change along on our journey.

Anthony B. Pinn has a tremendous piece today about this at Religion Dispatches, in which he concludes:

It is unreasonable to think President-elect Obama can or should resolve the conflict over religiously informed opinions when this very task has befuddled religious leaders for centuries. Obama will do well if he can help us make the tension between religious worldviews creative and an arena for fruitful exchange. What we can hope for is management of and respect for our religious differences and an attempt to map out ways to harness the energy of our shared quest for life meaning, for a greater sense of who, what, when, and where we are. And, in this way we might tame the more harmful aspects of our religious and theological orientations. Will we achieve this taming of our more harmful theologically-fueled tendencies...not likely, but it's a task worth the effort regardless of the outcome.

Obama is making this effort, and the measure of his success isn't the contentment of any particular group; but the ability of each group to voice its discontent, its disagreement and push a national conversation forward. Yes, dislike his selection for the invocation, and voice this dislike; but recognize that Obama's call for common ground will mean not always getting what you want.

 

As a community gay people are tired of waiting, of not getting the equality, not that we want as Pinn writes, but that we deserve, as Americans, and most importantly as children of God (for believers).

Are we more tired than women? More tired the African Americans? More tired than the current wave of brown immigrants coming to this nation of immigrants? More tired than under-educated or economically disadvantaged whites? Are we more tired than the many religions that make up the most diverse and religious country on the planet who are continually disregarded when someone says "this is a Christian nation" and whose faiths will not be represented at the inauguration prayers?

Those who have held the moral authority, as gay people do now, have always been long-suffering, non-violent and respectful. The shoulders we stand on in this moment understood that when caught between rocks and hard places, it is the slow erosion of trickling water that softens the hard edges. They left the throwing of rocks, the verbal and literal stoning, the torrent of the fire hoses spraying water against flesh, the beating, bashing and lynching to those on the wrong side of history. The glacial pace of change is frustrating and every group excluded from the promise of equality in America sees that slow pace as our nation's tragic flaw. It is also what allows each of us to fall in love with America as each generation works to fulfill her promise in new ways and thus remain a light of freedom to many suffering around the world.

That we might be entering a time when it is possible for us all, as Americans, to solve intractable problems of government with less animosity is a sign of hope.

There are iconic moments in history that have defined every struggle for equality. But if we who disagree with Warren disrupt a prayer, and specifically a prayer at the inaugural of the first African-American President in American history, the iconic moment captured on that historic day will cede moral high ground and goodwill progressives now hold. The gay community continues to deal with its own racial struggles within our community and black gay men and women understand the challenges in ways many white gays do not. To act out during a prayer will not help our cause where we most need the help, on gay issues and HIV/AIDS, within black churches.

Students in Georgia listened to George Wallace standing in the doorway, faced threats and derision, but quietly worked for change and won their rights. They sat at lunch counters where they were not welcome, quietly and simply attempting to order food from people who denied their humanity. Their quiet courage and presence won their rights. People marched and sang wishing President Kennedy would do more, some demanding it, many vocally frustrated by the political reality of the times. Women marched for decades just to be able to vote and then to have bodily autonomy and still await equal pay. Poor people of all races have always struggled to be heard, respected, educated, and employed -- and during these tough economic times more iconic images of disparity between rich and poor are being etched in our minds.

Those historic and iconic images changed hearts and minds and led us to this historic election and inauguration. We who disagree with Warren can listen respectfully for 90 seconds without creating a negative iconic image of people disrupting prayer -- and we can continue to fight strategically for the rights that are ours by birth. We risk too much moral authority -- the same that Obama is using to reach out to Warren -- by giving in to rage and emotion and disrupting a solemn moment. We can create positive iconic images in keeping with the respectful and non-violent traditions of all civil rights movements by listening to those we disagree with, and standing firm for our lives and loves with every other long-suffering movement for equality, and in doing so, support Barack Obama in his efforts to bring real and lasting change to our democracy, leading toward the full equality we all seek.

The promise of nature in winter is that light will return even in the face of the darkest day. It is the same promise that every faith tells different stories to teach at this time of year. In many ways, it is the genius and promise of America -- that in the face of darkness we can choose either to add to it, or instead find light within and with quiet strength and grace shine our light in a way that others will see and greet, and be thankful for giving us the opportunity to learn again that there is light within each of us. That we can choose differently. That in choosing to act from strength and light, we create the change we seek.

 

John McCain selected the far-right's hand-picked candidate as his running mate, Sarah Palin, instead of either of his preferred choices, Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge. McCain used one of the far-right's most egregious and most thoroughly debunked attacks, that Barack Obama supports infanticide, in the final presidential debate. The Republican Party platform is recognized as the most extreme platform in history on cultural issues. Palin has talked up "Culture of Life" issues in her very few interviews, and John McCain has as well, going on record saying he believes life begins at conception. The Republican National Committee, several pro-life lobbying groups, at least two independent expenditure campaigns and the McCain campaign have used television, radio, mail, internet and robo-calls to deliver what appears to be a coordinated message on the "Born Alive" infanticide charge.

The McCain-Palin campaign attacked comprehensive sexuality education, supported bans on gay marriage, and several fundamentalist Christian churches openly defied tax and election law by endorsing the ticket from their pulpits to further energize their base. Everyone is talking about the importance of the Supreme Court and attacks from the far-right have intensified as the campaign progressed. In every possible way, the Republican Party and the McCain-Palin campaign embraced the far-right's "Culture of Life."

Social conservatives could not possibly ask for more.

If McCain and Palin win, the appeal to the far-right base will be heralded as the reason, and he will owe them far more than just the Supreme Court justices he has promised. If they lose, the recriminations, which have already started, will be fierce and the Culture War will likely turn into an un-Civil War within the Grand Old Party. Already the Palinistas on the far-right are suggesting she was "mishandled" by the campaign. Others will say with the economic crisis, there was just no way for McCain to win, even with a more experienced vice-president that appealed to independents.

You can bet that none of the Culture Warriors on the far-right will take even one moment to consider that they have moved too far outside the mainstream of American culture. Either they are heroes for having delivered victory to McCain-Palin, or
if they lose, they'll argue that McCain wasn't strong enough on social
issues from the beginning. Will any brave and clear-sighted Republicans realize that rather than
throwing McCain a lifeline in this election, far-right extremism has
further isolated McCain, and the party, from mainstream Americans?

It is hard to imagine how much meaner and nastier a campaign can get than distorting someone's record and accusing them of infanticide, but I have faith that the far-right could. That is what they will argue if they face defeat.

Yet there are actual facts that tell a different story from the one social-cons will believe, and argues against crediting them with victory should that come.

Since 2004, when equal numbers (37 percent) of Americans identified with each of the two major political parties, Democrats have held steady while the Republicans have dropped to 29 percent. New registrations, especially in swing states, have dramatically favored the Democrats. Across the board, polling has indicated that the Culture War issues of abortion and gay rights matter to a very small percentage of the electorate, usually less than five percent, often less than three. Similarly, polling consistently indicates Americans reject far-right social conservative policies like abstinence-only-until-marriage, banning abortion and stem cell research, and discriminating against homosexuals.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have unflinchingly discussed their pro-education, pro-prevention and pro-choice values, from a position of public policy as well as personal morality. Obama put together a platform that has been praised by pro-choice and pro-life Democrats, and openly talks about working to reduce unintended pregnancies while respecting different opinions on abortion. The ticket supports stem cell research and does not believe in discrimination.

The far-right cannot complain that the Obama campaign has somehow "hidden" its agenda.

Could it be that Americans are rejecting the far-right Culture War? Could it be that they see through the tactical misinformation and manipulation of the "Culture of Life" and recognize it instead as a Culture of Lies? Even with a McCain victory the trend lines are obvious, the Culture War issues no longer resonate, especially with younger voters. 

Let's be clear. I don't know anyone who would take away the right for a person to believe what they choose, to follow their faith, however they interpret it. The Culture of Lies is not about what the far-right believes or their right to believe it. The lies are about how they distort facts trying to impose what they believe on everyone else, taking away other Americans' rights in the process.

Continue reading Part 1 of Culture of Lies...

 

By every objective, measurable analysis, from CNN's dial tests, to MSNBC's focus group in Kansas City, to the CBS and Fox News flash polls -- to RH Reality Check's own server-crashing high traffic volume following the final presidential debate -- Americans are embracing the pro-education, pro-prevention, and pro-choice values RH Reality Check writes about every day.

Senator John McCain gave far-right social conservatives in the anti-choice community everything they asked for, perhaps more.  Instead of picking a pro-choice running mate in Sen. Joe Lieberman or Gov. Tom Ridge, he chose Gov. Sarah Palin who rallied the base.  In the final presidential debate, McCain went so far as to mock "health" threats to mothers as a reasonable exemption for women with crisis pregnancies, a position he once challenged George W. Bush on in a GOP primary debate in 2000. 

Late-term abortions are rare, less than two percent of all abortions, and are always medically necessary, by law.

McCain even adopted the anti-choice lexicon using politicized phrases like "pro-abortion" and "partial-birth abortion" which is not actually a medical term. After saying he would not use a litmus test to select judicial nominees, McCain seemed to contradict himself saying, "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone (swallows hard) that has supported Roe v. Wade, that would be part of those qualifications." McCain went even further though, repeating charges debunked since 2004 by many independent sources, that Obama supports infanticide. 

To McCain's credit he made the strongest possible case for people who genuinely believe that the government should be able to force women to give birth. The far-right of the anti-choice movement could not have asked for more.  If McCain wins, they may get credit for saving his campaign, but their messages seemed to flop in objective analysis.

During McCain's discussion of social conservative cultural values, some undecided male voters moved slightly positive while undecided women voters in CNN's dial test trended steadily more negative.

In sharp contrast, Sen. Barack Obama called for more understanding and less partisan division on abortion, and articulated his clear pro-education, pro-prevention and pro-choice values that saw both men and women in the dial tests giving him the highest possible positive ratings.  Focus groups and instant polls by a variety of networks all indicated Obama won the debate and saw more movement in his direction by undecided voters, further indicating that Americans are embracing pro-choice values as one important aspect of his candidacy.

Obama said, "abortion is a very difficult issue and a moral issue, and one that good people on both sides can disagree on. But what ultimately I believe is that women, in consultation with their families, doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. I think the Constitution has a right to privacy in it, that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our first amendment rights are subject to state referendum."

Obama later said that abortion is an issue that divides us, "but surely there is some common ground where people who believe in choice and those who oppose abortion can come together and say we can prevent unintended pregnancies, by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity and provide options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. Those are all things we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and that's where we can find some common ground because nobody is pro-abortion."

With such a clear articulation of pro-education, pro-prevention and pro-choice values, juxtaposed to the McCain-Palin ticket's full throat-ed support for a "Culture of Life" -- including all the sharpest and most cutting attacks on late term abortion and infanticide -- there is no doubt that this election is a referendum on the far-right. Social conservatism more generally, and the results of their generational Culture War waged against other American citizens is getting a thorough vetting from the voters.

If McCain wins, the far-right will be in total control and should be given credit within the Republican Party for saving John McCain's candidacy.  If McCain loses, given all that he has done for the far-right, I suspect the Republican Party will take a few years to sort out just what happened, and exactly where they lost touch with the values of most Americans.

I'd suggest they look back to Terri Schiavo, consider their abstinence-only-until marriage failures, and the war on contraception and medically accurate information as a starting point.  What the heck, for good measure, maybe they should consider their failed response to HIV/AIDS for 25 years, and their damnation of gay Americans and their families too. Most likely they will come to learn that while crisis pregnancies are rare, the families involved genuinely believe the health of the mother is pretty important, and that government should get out of legislating private medical decisions.

There is still time, if the far-right really does represent the family values of most Americans, we should see it in the polls soon, and on election day with a McCain victory.

Originally published at RH Reality Check.