Oh, How Precious Is the Freedom to Make Decisions

MAY 29, 2023

John Wm. Roberts, ED.D., Director of Music/Principal Musician; Lee Chapel AME Church, Auburn, Alabama, 9 th Episcopal District environments impossible. Because of ecological racism, black women have higher rates of infertility, fibroids, and uterine-based conditions. Because of medical racism, black women are more likely to die during and immediately after childbirth than women of every other race. These risks are not mitigated by class or socioeconomic status. Our struggle for liberation, equity, and civil rights has always included reproductive justice – even if we never used that term for it.

Honestly, Audre Lorde was right, “There is no such thing as a singleissue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.” Anti-black racism impacts every facet of our lives – including our reproduction, our liberty to determine our family size and status, our access to social mobility, and even our medical care. Reproductive justice is one way to name the struggle and to reclaim ourselves as made in God’s image with the right to self-determination. This is the work of the AME Church. It is who we have always been. It is how we minister to the social, spiritual, and physical development of all people. Reproductive justice is another way for us to go about the work of the kingdom of God.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was the case that brought about the 2022 Supreme Court decision reversing Roe v. Wade. This ruling began the process of sending women’s reproductive decisions back to individual states. Chaos has ensued, placing the lives of unborn children and their mothers in jeopardy.

I am an older brother to five younger sisters ranging in age from 62-69 years and the father of a daughter who will be 53 in August. I am aware of both the ease and difficulty they have encountered as they entered and exited their prime reproductive years. In a recent study, statistics have shown that African American women are 35% more likely to die during or immediately af ter childbirth due to the lack of accessibility to quality women’s reproductive healthcare facilities.

I am pro-choice; however, many in my immediate and extended family are pro-life. Opinions and idea differences will always exist within families, organizations, and ethnic groups. There are a series of questions I pose to those who are adamantly pro-life: [1]-“While I applaud your commitment to the welfare of the child before birth, what safety nets, support networks, are in place for mother, child, and, yes, families, after the child is born?” [2]-“If, upon receiving information, the child was conceived as a result of rape and incest, why is the mother being forced to carry the unborn child to term? What support systems are in place to aid with helping the victim deal with the trauma which resulted in the unwanted pregnancy?” [3]-“What are your thoughts about terminating a pregnancy if the fetus is proven to be unviable?” [4]-“What processes are in place when the health of the mother is in the balance as a result of an at-risk pregnancy?”

These are questions I would and have asked. Though uncomfortable to face, these are questions that should be asked. Whatever your thoughts on the issue of a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her reproductive rights and health, how can these questions be ignored? Have Christians become so entrenched in ideology they have lost compassion or objectivity?

One major point of contention is the passage of the draconian abortion bans, passed in 25 states in this union we call the United States of America. The majority of the state legislatures are controlled by ‘white men’ who have never conceived, let alone given birth. This is yet another method by which men seek to control the minds and ...continued on p35 bodies of women. Historically, this has a parallel within certain denominations of Judeo-Christian religions. For years, certain denominations would not, and some still do not, allow women to preach the Gospel from the pulpit wit hin the confines of their denominational churches. To preach simply means to proclaim. The Great Commission, Matthew 28:19-20, exhorts all who profess to be followers of Christ to proclaim, teach, and baptize: 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” There are no distinctions between men and women as to those chosen to proclaim, teach, and baptize! A person’s call to preach is personal – between them and God! Just as the call to pastoral service is personal, the decision regarding the sanctity of life is personal. The ability of a woman to make decisions regarding her health is, as with the aforementioned, personal.

Matthew 22:21b states, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” In the effort to control, certain segments of society have intermingled the ideology of society with the perceived ideology of God. The separation of church and state, in this volatile situation, needs implementation. The desires of man are not always those of God. Man has yet to attain that level of perfection. ❏

Response to the Anniversary of the Dobbs Decision from the AME Church Health Commission

Rev. Dr. Ann Marie Bentsi-Addison, Women’s Health Coordinator, Connectional Health Commission

As we approach the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs), the International Health Commission of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (IHC AME Church) has remained vocal about its opposition to the ruling and its harmful consequences, particularly for black women.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case centers on a Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law was struck down by a district court in 2019, but the state of Mississippi appealed the decision, leading to the Supreme Court’s decision in late 2021 that such bans are, in fact, constitutional. This decision has far-reaching consequences not only for reproductive rights but for the health and well-being of BIPOC individuals.

It is well-documented that Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color (BIPOC) communities face greater barriers to accessing quality healthcare, including reproductive healthcare. Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color are disproportionately affected by involuntary sterilization, lack of access to contraception or birth control, and limited access to quality healthcare providers. The Dobbs decision will only exacerbate these already-exi sting disparities by further limiting access to safe and legal reproductive healthcare, which BIPOC individuals will bear the brunt of.

Additionally, the systemic barriers that often prevent BIPOC individuals from accessing healthcare also increase their risk of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, to begin with. Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color individuals are more likely to live in low-income areas. They are more likely to face unemployment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, and other challenges that increase the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy. The inability to obtain such needed care in a safe, accessible, and affordable manner will only perpetuate the cyclical effects of poverty, further widening the gap between racial groups. Moreover, we must also consider the psychological and emotional toll that this decision may have on BIPOC communities. Defined again by the context of their lived experience, many have seen their access to safe healthcare deteriorate as policy concerns, insurance coverage, parental consent laws, and stigma impacting abortion access entrenches systemic and logistical barriers for BIPOC individuals. Expecting people to come to grips with being forced to make reproductive health decisions for which they are not financially or emotionally prepared and the lifelong fallout is only one injustice among many.

We must continue to actively push for more inclusive, patient-centered, and equitable policy solutions in the United States. Such policies will limit harm, prevent further health disparities, and support easier equitable access to health services.

Until then, the fight to reduce these invasive forces and practices that harm BIPOC individuals must

What Would Jesus Do?

Rev. Dr. Kent L.

Poindexter, Contributing Writer

We live in a country that boasts that it is a reflection of a “true democracy” and that, overall, it reflects a strong sense of “Christian” values. Over the last 15 years, it has become clear this is not the case. The loudest voices proclaiming their faith guides decisions about how we should live are those who have determined that they have the right to force everyone to believe in God exactly as they do. There is a major contradiction here— remain at the forefront to push against the harm being done.

Social justice and advocacy are at the core of African Methodism, especially in uplifting the voices and needs of the black community. Much of our efforts have centered around promoting access to healthcare and reproductive rights, which Dobbs substantially threatened.

At the root of the church’s response was a clear understanding of the devastation that limits care, as Dobbs will do. Beneficial structures that ensure access to reproductive healthcare have fallen further away. The impact of this decision goes beyond healthcare access. When met with unnecessary and invasive political intrusions into their reproductive health decisions, BIPOC individuals are put into uncomfortable and life-threatening situations. This adds to the legacy of trauma already existing in these communities. what happened to the idea that “all are endowed with certain unalienable rights . . . among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”

In a political climate of general uncertainty around issues of one’s body, it remains an affront to choices made around it as an extension of longstanding black legal and social stripping. The IHC AME Church reiterates its long-held commitment to reproductive justice--that is, the right of individuals to choose and control their own reproductive lives and well-being. We continue our efforts in partnership with other healthcare advocacy organizations to educate congregants and allies against various threats to reproductive freedom.

How is it that, on the one hand, the constitutional conservatives believe that life begins at the point of conception and that they must protect life, yet on the other hand, they determine that people have the right to own guns which are being used to take away life? How can people call themselves “Pro-Life” when they only value certain lives and knowingly support the notion of allowing anyone to decide when they have the right to take a life?

These contradictions should be a sign to those who desire consistency in the interpretation of laws and rights in our country. They should open our eyes to the fact that the Dobbs v. Jackson decision over abortion rights does not reflect concerns about whether abortion is moral. Ultimately it turns decisions about abortion rights over to state governments, thus allowing the states to be arbitrators of people’s rights. This decision has set a precedent for states whose legislatures and leadership lean toward being part

Who Are We?

By Rev. Dr. Monica C. Jones

of the so-called “Moral Majority” to impose their will on people. Even before this decision, states had begun to redraw voting districts to favor this group and to, in effect, disenfranchise millions of people who take seriously the words of the Declaration of Independence and our nation’s Constitution, which provide for every citizen to have a voice in the nation’s affairs. Just as the “Moral Majority” has never represented the “majority” of voters in the country, neither does the “new school” of conservatism, which has its sights set on determining exactly what rights are “inalienable” and who is truly entitled to enjoy such rights. Dobbs v. Jackson is the opening to taking away those “inalienable rights” and potentially turning our democracy into a dictatorship.

As we reflect on what decisions made by the very conservative wing of the Supreme Court mean for the country (one justice has indicated that Dobbs v. Jackson provides an opening to look at other decisions by previous courts which allow people the freedom to make decisions about their lives), it seems that we who profess belief and faith in Jesus Christ should be asking ourselves, “What would Jesus do?” What would the “Original Revolutionary” have to say about a government that claims to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and yet seeks ways to decide when the people’s voices matter? What would Jesus say about those who say that they heed his call to “pick up their crosses and follow” and yet decide that it is okay to hinder people from having “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? What is Jesus saying about those who will not stand up and speak truth to power in these difficult times? What would Jesus do?

Had I had an opportunity to have children, it is likely that I would not have terminated a pregnancy. Yet, if I had needed to, I would not have expected to have someone in the halls of the stat e capital, congress, or other legislative body try to make the decision for me. I certainly would not have expected unyielding, power-seeking politicians to place my life in danger in an attempt to suspend my civil rights and reproductive freedom.

In the garden, God could have certainly forced the couple to obey the commandments they had been given and submit to God’s will. Yet, God allowed Eve and Adam to determine whether they would be obedient or disobedient.

Jesus, in all of his power and authority over humankind, gave us choices. When he said that he would stand at the door and knock (Revelation 3:20), he was making it clear that it was our decision to choose salvation or sin. It was our decision to choose the path we would take for our redemption.

Already, women have testified to the horrendous and lifethreatening circumstances to which they have been subjected. Some have sat in cars outside of hospitals, hemorrhaging until their lives were declared “in danger.” A ten-year-old rape victim had to travel outside her home state to get the care she needed.

Physicians have already testified about life-threatening emergencies that have occurred because of narrow-minded individuals who, without medical knowledge, have dictated when a pregnancy is viable or not. They were forced to sit by while their patients carried dead fetuses to term.

An interesting observation about this crisis is how some of us, as members of the Black Church community, have latched on to the one issue, standing side-by- side with extremists and various evangelicals who uphold antichoice laws. These biased, illinformed voices declare that they are pro-life. Still, one does not see them putting as much energy and effort into advocating for the loss of black lives because of the inequitable application of capital punishment.

The question we should ask ourselves is, who are we to make decisions regarding the health and reproductive rights of women? Who are we to decide what a person should or shouldn’t do regarding the future of their family? Who are we to attempt to legislate reproductive choice?

Who are we? We are human beings with fallacies and weaknesses, and shortcomings. We all have sinned; we have all fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We all have a right to our privacy, and we have no business deciding for other human beings matters that should be between them, their physician, and their God.

The Reverend Monica C. Jones is on staff and director of Christian Education at Big Bethel in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Pro-Life Agenda Is the Agenda of White Supremacy

Rev. Renita Green

Purity theology was introduced in a very pronounced way when a youth pastor was hired from the Foursquare denomination at my small childhood church in the 80s. I recall many messages about fornication and promiscuity, staying pure until marriage, the purity of a virgin is like the purity of God. These messages came from a man who sexually assaulted me during a lock-in at the church.

Six months pregnant at fourteen, I was sent to a home for unwed mothers where I was told that I was to place my baby for adoption— and all the reasons why it was good. I was terrified and numb and did what I was told. No one in my family, school, or church asked me about being pregnant—not if I was, not by whom—nothing. The intake paperwork asked for the father’s name. No one seemed to flinch at the fact that he was in his twenties and I was fourteen. They assumed I was just out having sex—sinful and impure. They did not know he forced himself on me, and I was too numb to tell.

Two girls were sent home after their babies were not selected for adoption—the babies would be black. My Hispanic baby was chosen. After her birth, I was sent back to the hellhole in which I lived—despite my pleas not to have to leave. I received no counseling, no interventions, and no protection.

...continued on p37

They took my baby and sent me on my way. Years later, in a conversation about abortion with a woman mentor in ministry, I learned about “back alley” abortions and how white elites were sent away to “boarding schools” to give birth. I thought about my experience and how the stories were all too similar.

In 1967 Ronald Reagan signed a California law that made it easier for women to access abortion. Just three years later, a headline in The New York Times reported that there was a shortage of white infants in adoption agencies, and the conversation began to change. In 1972 Nixon used the issue of abortion to sway Catholic voters (recent data shows that Catholic women have the highest rate of abortions). In 1980, Reagan, on a platform of being the party of the “moral majority,” promised more pro-life judges and a return to “family values.” It is well known that the rhetoric of both Nixon and Reagan was a dog whistle for white supremacists.

Fears of the replacement theory run deep in white supremacists. The Brookings Institute reports that by 2045 the United States will become a “white minority” country. Currently, women of color are the highest rate of abortions at 38.4%. “Women of color” includes Hispanic women (not Asian). This means that there are actually more white babies aborted than black babies—this is what scares them.

The “pro-life” issue in the United

States is not—and has never been— about babies or theology. This is an issue of wealth and power—an issue of white supremacy. The goal of white supremacists is to prevent “replacement” by breeding as many white babies as possible.

White babies are adopted at an average cost of $30,000. Religious adoption agencies—primarily rooted in Catholicism or Evangelicalism— prey on impoverished white mothers to place the babies with adoptive families so as to give the child a “chance for a good life.” However, this “good life” is set up for white babies—others get sent back home Historically, the church and the government colluded to control behaviors, amass wealth, steal land, and colonize indigenous people.

When the government needed to curtail a behavior, it was deemed a sin by the church. When the church needed to impose moral codes, the government created laws.

What we see from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the same tune but different lyrics.

The church has used the government as a moral muscle. The government agreed, in exchange, for the pulpit to be the promoter of white supremacist ideology. We must be sober-minded and watchful. The adversary is seeking to devour. Many see the Dobbs decision as good. However, everything “good” ain’t God, and if it ain’t God, is it really good? ❏ ❏ ❏