Christians and Jews associated with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice are outraged at these false charges. We respect Mr. Ashcroft's right to believe as he chooses and to practice his religion as he chooses, as we hope he respects our beliefs and practices. We certainly respect his right to his deeply held and sincere beliefs about abortion and contraception, and we wish he would respect ours. We do not oppose Mr. Ashcroft because we are anti-Christian; we oppose him because we are anti-extremist.
To set the record straight, the Coalition includes organizations from the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Association as well as Reform and Conservative Judaism and clergy and lay persons from these and many other Christian and Jewish denominations. The organizations have varying positions on a woman's right to choose. What unites them is respect for religious freedom and the belief that reproductive decisions are best left in the hands of a woman and her God, without government interference. Calling us anti-Christian when we are Christian shows an interpretation of Christianity that is narrow and rigid.
Respect for diverse views and beliefs, including those about abortion, contraception, and sexuality education, is at the core of being religious and pro-choice. In fact, pro-choice people of faith are defined by their commitment to respecting individual conscience and beliefs, a distinction the religious right seems not to understand.
Second, the amendment would undermine our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. As ethicist Dr. John Swomley has written, "Since only some religious organizations or churches use this definition [that personhood begins at fertilization], the adoption of such language would mark the end of a secular Constitution and make the Constitution the captive of religions that consider fetal life beginning with fertilization more important than the woman in whose womb the conceptus is implanted."
But there's more. The assertion that the fetus is a person leads to the notion that fetuses have citizenship rights and that these rights are equal to--or superior to--the rights of women. Such fetal rights and fetal protection legislation have been used to punish women for their behavior during pregnancy. Prosecuting women for illegal drug and alcohol use during pregnancy opens the way to prosecuting any behavior by a pregnant woman, such as smoking, drinking caffeine, jogging late in pregnancy, or failing to follow a doctor's orders.
In opposing Ashcroft's nomination, we are not criticizing his faith or his views. We are pointing out he has a track record as an advocate who is so extreme that he has repeatedly tried to impose his beliefs on others and outlaw the right of a woman to make the most personal choices about her family life.
How can a man of faith raise his hand to swear he will uphold the law of the land, including Roe v. Wade, when he believes the law is wrong and has dedicated the past 25 years of his life to overturning the law? Mr. Ashcroft's extreme ideology and voting record regarding reproductive decisions show a lack of respect for religious diversity and individual conscience. John Ashcroft is the wrong person to be the chief law enforcement officer of a religiously diverse nation such as ours.