Who’s Really Hurting the Pro-Life Cause?

Last week, the Clothesline Report posted an article about an evangelical Christian minister testifying before Congress in support of the EPA’s mercury emissions standards.  Rev. Mitch Hescox told the legislators:  “I’m an evangelical, and I’m concerned about life.  I believe we should stand up and protect our unborn – the ‘least of these.’  I’m here because it’s a life issue.”

Rev. Hescox was opposed by an oil-backed congressman from Illinois, who characterized Hescox’s testimony as “masquerading” and “usurping” the pro-life banner. Even the backing of the National Association of Evangelicals and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops didn’t carry much weight with Hescox’s critics.

We observed that the exchange highlighted a fundamental divide in religious understandings of the sanctity of life: Stopping abortions alone; or protecting human life in all its stages from all forms of threat.

We thought we were the only ones watching. But it turns out that lots of people were tuned in. And as best as we can tell, they don’t like what they’re seeing.  Here’s a sampling of comments to a related article from the online publication, The Hill:

• “Evangelical Christians aren’t truly pro-life.”
• “They’re pro-life as long as you’re a fetus.  When you’re born, you become fodder.”
• “God hates clean air.”
• “This is all about money and power.  To pretend that opposing EPA's life-affirming and life-protecting rules is to support the poor is a ruse.”
• “The term ‘pro-life’ is hi-jacked by those who have a narrow view of the God-given sanctity of life.”
• “Killing by spoon, gun or smoke stack is no different.”
• “Once again, supposedly ‘pro-life’ and ‘Christian’ organizations are slamming an evangelical environmental group...”
• “Apparently ‘pro-life’ can only mean one thing, and that's not protection from deadly pollution.”

The comments go on and on. I’d have to say that this is not a high-water mark for the “city on a hill.” The sight of American Christians lining up – in the name of the sanctity of life –  to oppose fellow Christians who support clean air standards surely gives great comfort to those who care little about the kingdom of God, and about the sanctity of all lives He created.

And so, still smarting from the public finger-wagging at people identified with my faith, I thought I’d refer you to an article written by a Baptist minister:  The Far-Right Fringe Embarrasses the Pro-Life Movement – Again. Rev. Charles Redfern asks the question that forms the title to this post. And he doesn’t pull his punches, so you’re forewarned.  But if you’d like to see one Christian pastor's defense of Rev. Hescox’s stand, take a look here.

Thanks for reading, and may God bless you.

J. Elwood

Follow @John_Elwood

Feedback Loops: How Killer Heat Begets More Killer Heat

The Texas congressional delegation usually doesn’t have much use for scientists.  No other group of lawmakers has so recklessly dismissed all scientific warnings about climate change and environmental degradation.

So I sat up and took notice last week when Texas Rep. Pete Olson ($352,000*) admitted that he accepted the findings of the climate experts.  Well, sort of.

[*Note: We provide in red brackets the amount of money politicians have accepted from oil, gas and coal lobbyists. Find how much your Congressional representatives have taken here.]

Olson ($352,000) was debating recent EPA regulations regarding emissions from coal-fired power plants last week.  And he had a tragic story to tell: “My home state of Texas is still suffering from a significant drought,” said Olson in what may be the understatement of the century.  “The district I represent went through the hottest August in history – above 100 degrees every single day in August.”

Record heat and drought had Texans praying for rain

And then came the shocker: “And experts predict,” admitted Olson, “that we’re going to have the same conditions occurring this summer.”

Yes, you heard it right: A Texas congressman citing climate warnings issued by Texas scientists.

In fact, we have been unable to find a single Texas climate scientist who does not agree that Texas is in for prolonged drought and heat waves.  From what we see, they also are unanimous in their assessment that human-caused climate change is exacerbating Texas’ heat and drought, threatening the state with potential long-term desertification.

We might think that a congressman faced with such dire warnings regarding his home district would move aggressively to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that the researchers tell us drive these climate trends.  But then, we would be wrong.

For Rep. Olson ($352,000), the record heat is all the more reason to burn more coal, to assure plenty of electricity for air conditioning.  “The organization that controls the grid for most of our state is worried about capacity shortages if this weather recurs, as expected,” said Olson.  For this reason, the congressman argued passionately against any regulation of coal-fired power plants by the EPA.

Black spot: Texas and much of Mexico are bone dry

Now, we’re very familiar with positive feedback loops.  For example, warmer global temperatures melt more sea ice; more white, reflective sea ice is replaced by dark, absorbent sea water; the dark water absorbs more solar heat, further warming the atmosphere; which, in turn, melts more sea ice; and so forth.

But there’s another feedback loop that gets less attention.  It’s the Human Feedback Loop.  People burn fossil fuels to power air conditioning virtually everywhere; the resulting carbon emissions drive extreme weather, including heat waves and droughts; and their representatives do everything possible to ensure that they can burn even more fossil fuels for the electricity to stay cool during those heat waves; and so forth.

The Human Feedback Loop does not bode well for efforts to preserve the earth’s climate systems.  Warm states like Texas owe much of their dynamism to air conditioning and the hydrocarbons that fuel it.  Now that blistering heat is the order of the day, cries for more fossil fuels will only intensify.

But the Texas researchers tell us that the carbon emissions are at the heart of the problem.  Texas State Climatologist JohnNielsen-Gammon puts it this way:  “There is evidence that global warming has had an effect on the drought, primarily by increasing the surface temperature, which increases the drought severity by increasing evaporation and water stress, and by decreasing stream flow and water supply.”

Texas Tech climate scientist and creation-care spokesperson Katherine Hayhoe reinforces the message:  “Climate change has already altered the background conditions of our atmosphere, and in that sense, every event — drought, heat, storm — contains climate change…. We know that in the future it will be hotter, with more extreme heat, so more water will evaporate, less water will be in the soil, and therefore we are more likely to have drought.”

Climate scientist Hayhoe cites Christian motivation

Rep. Olson ($352,000) accepts scientific warnings about coming heat and drought.  But like the rest of the Texas congressional delegation, he doesn’t have much use for the connection between greenhouse gases and Texas-sized climate catastrophe.  

Wonder why?  In a Texas congressional delegation awash with oil money, do you think it could have anything to do with the $352,000?

Whatever his reasons, he and his colleagues give us a perfect picture of the Human Feedback Loop. With the prospects for a blistering Texas summer, I wouldn’t expect it to ease up any time soon.

Thanks for reading, and may God bless you.

J. Elwood

Hayhoe image credit: John Davis, Texas Tech University

Follow @John_Elwood

What Does It Mean to be Pro-Life?

Last Wednesday, a Congressional subcommittee held a hearing to debate the costs and benefits of the EPA’s recently-issued regulations of emissions from coal-fired power plants.  The sub-committee – chaired by Kentucky Rep. Ed Whitfield ($580,983*) – grilled the EPA’s representative, and numerous other witnesses from academia and industry.  Contrary to most of the testimony they heard, the congressmen repeatedly cited dire warnings from the coal industry that the rule would bankrupt much of the country.

[* Congressmen’s names are followed by the amount of money they have received from coal, oil and gas polluters.]

Eventually, they came to Rev. Mitch Hescox, a Christian minister, and the president of Evangelical Environmental Network.  Core to Hescox’s testimony was the idea that evangelicals are motivated by belief in the sanctity of life; that the gospel compels us to protect the most vulnerable – unborn children – from the ravages of mercury poisoning.

“Exposing children to mercury poisoning in their mother’s womb, a poisoning that will last a lifetime, is simply wrong,” said Hescox.  “We have it within our means to reduce 90% of the mercury emitted from coal-burning power plants without the fear of diminished electric reliability or job loss, and with economic benefits at least five times greater than the cost.”

Rev. Mitch Hescox of EEN

Hescox enumerated the threat to our children:  “According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 1 in 6 children in the United States are born with threatening levels of mercury.  Another medical research study places the number of children affected at roughly 15%. Mercury impairs neurological development, lowers IQ, and is linked to cardiovascular disease and a host of other potential adverse health impacts. Over 1,000 published medical journal articles verify mercury's heath impacts.”

When asked why he cared about the issue of mercury poisoning, Hescox replied: “I’m an evangelical, and I’m concerned about life.  I believe we should stand up and protect our unborn – the “least of these.”  I’m here because it’s a life issue.”

But not everyone sees it this way.  Texas Rep. Joey Barton ($1,914,183) claimed that there was no harm from mercury pollution. And Illinois Rep. John Shimkus ($731,804) – an apparently committed pro-lifer – was indignant.  Reading from a prepared text, Shimkus accused Rev. Hescox of “masquerading” under the banner of the sanctity of life.

“The ‘life’ in ‘pro-life’ denotes not the quality of life, but life itself,” said Shimkus ($731,804). “The term denotes opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies….  It’s not about the levels of harm or no harm.”

“Mr. Shimkus,” replied Rev. Hescox, “would you allow me to respond?”

“I think I’m doing pretty good right now,” replied Shimkus ($731,804), noting that he and his allies “take great offense when an evangelical movement tries to usurp the meaning of pro-life.”

Rep. John Shimkus (republicanconference)

When Shimkus finished, Hescox asked the panel for the opportunity to reply.

“I’m not going to allow him to respond,” said committee Chairman Whitfield ($580,983).

As unsavory as this debate appears to us outsiders, it highlights a fundamental divide in religious understandings of the sanctity of life.  The National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Evangelical Environmental Network take a broad view:  That following Christ in affirming the sanctity of life requires Christians to protect all people from harm, illness, injustice and violence. 

“We are united to protect life,” said Hescox, “a sacred gift from God, both before and after birth. Anything that threatens and impedes life, especially impacts on the unborn and young children, is contrary to our common beliefs and values and exacts a moral toll on the nation’s character.”

On the other hand, Rep. Shimkus ($731,804) articulates a very different view:  Affirming the sanctity of life has nothing to do with “levels of harm or no harm.”  Rather, it’s solely about opposing laws that permit a “specific procedure.”

Well, here at the Clothesline Report, we’re glad that the NEA, EEN and the Catholic Bishops have come together to make us think a bit.  We may come from different Christian traditions, but we share an allegiance to Jesus Christ.  When Jesus began his ministry, he went to the synagogue, and read aloud from the sacred writings of the prophet Isaiah.  Here’s what the text said:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn;
to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified. [ Isaiah 61]

Who was Jesus saying he was here for?  The poor, the brokenhearted, the captives, the mourners and the weak.  Those whom he later called “the least of these my brothers.”

So is it enough oppose a “specific procedure” while protecting the interests of powerful polluting industries?  It would appear that many in Congress think so.

But, as for us, I think we’ll cast our lot with the evangelicals and the Bishops.

Thanks for reading, and may God bless you.

J. Elwood

Follow @John_Elwood

Oily Money: Should Election Media Be Funded by Big Oil?

Last night was a big night in American presidential politics.  Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota had big races, and the results surprised a lot of people.  So naturally, I was interested.  I tuned in to CNN, thinking that they would be the most politically neutral. 

“America’s Choice 2012,” blared the network voice-over, “brought to you by America's Natural Gas Alliance.  Natural gas: abundant, domestic clean American power."

Then came the advertisement, vaguely promising “up to a million jobs,” and assuring us that gas drilling (no mention of “hydro-fracking,” of course) won’t pollute anything.

Hmm.  This is a political race.  Am I hearing this right?  The media coverage is being sponsored by the same natural gas people who are donating heavily to the campaigns themselves?

But a half hour later, the announcement changed: “America’s Choice 2012,” said voice again, “brought to you by Clean Coal, America’s power.”  Of course, there followed a silly commercial about how coal will rescue the beleaguered American little guy from our economic woes.  No discussion, of course, about that little word: “clean.” Here's a look:

Once again, I’m wondering: Why should gas, and now coal, be funding a media outlet’s election coverage?  Coal interests are heavily invested in these elections.  They’re the ones paying for all this posturing in Congress about how climate change is “a massive hoax” – and how we should handcuff the EPA from protecting unborn babies and their mothers from mercury poisoning.

But sure enough, the announcement changed again: “America’s Choice 2012, brought to you by Vote4Energy,” an arm of the American Petroleum Institute.  These are the people paying Congress to overrun American grassroots resistance to the Canadian Tar Sands export pipeline, slated to run across the heartland of America.

By the end of the evening, I had heard more from Exxon and Chevron than I had from Santorum and Romney.

But is this what the First Amendment has in mind?  When polluting interests can control the candidates with unlimited spending, that’s bad.  But when they can go on to control the election coverage and the electorate by carpet-bombing the airwaves with deceptive ads, that’s simply shameful.

But Americans know that ordinary people can change things.  For starters, why not write your network of choice?  You can add your voice to the chorus of people demanding a free media.

Here’s what I suggest: Copy the letter I’ve written below, and then click on one of the three network links below, and paste the letter into the comment box.  Or better yet, write your own letter, if you have time.

• CNN
• MSNBC
• Fox

To the news staff:

As a person who values independent media coverage of political elections, I find it indefensible that you subject your viewers to the barrage of deceptive, politically-charged advertising by oil, coal and natural gas lobbies during election coverage.  The fossil-fuel lobbies are among the largest donors to the super-PACs, and are the most active manipulators of this year’s political campaigns.  If they prevail, most efforts to protect the earth’s systems from devastating climate change and pollution will come to ruin.  And they not only control the politicians with their money:  They now exert undue influence on your network, and maintain a platform for spreading disinformation and confusion among your viewers.

All people – even oil & coal advertisers – have a right to speak; but no one has an obligation to accept dirty oil money to collaborate in the misleading of American voters.

It’s time to end your affair with the fossil-fuel lobbyists.  Stop running oil, coal and gas ads during election coverage!

Thanks for acting, and may God bless you.

J. Elwood

Follow @John_Elwood