It’s hard to describe the relief I felt when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act.

The outcome of the case was literally a matter of life and death for struggling families and people discriminated against by health insurance companies. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Breyer, tens of millions of Americans will no longer be at risk of getting cut off from the care they need. Roberts, who has a very conservative record, shocked observers of all stripes by breaking ranks with the right wing and upholding the law. Dozens of nationally prominent faith leaders expressed strong approval of the decision.

Unfortunately one of the Affordable Care Act’s most important features – the expansion of Medicaid to cover all Americans who make less than 133% of the poverty level – was weakened by Roberts’s opinion. States may now opt out of this provision easily even though federal funding covers the overwhelming majority of the expense and refusing to accept it would take healthcare coverage away from struggling families.

Some Republican governors appear eager to deprive their constituents of healthcare. Already five GOP governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Rick Scott of Florida and Terry Branstad of Iowa – have announced that they will refuse federal funding to expand Medicaid. This could deprive up to 1.4 million people of coverage. Numerous other GOP leaders are threatening to follow suit. Taking away people’s access to quality, affordable healthcare isn’t just cynical, it’s sinful. Putting the ideological demands of the Tea Party before the well-being of families isn’t
principled, it’s cowardly.

One of the reasons Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in the first place was because clergy and faith-based community organizers lifted up the human consequences and moral issues at stake. We can make the same impact now as we did back then.

The “Nuns on the Bus: Nuns Drive for Faith, Family and Fairness” tour, which concluded with an inspirational rally and press conference in Washington yesterday, strongly rebuked Congressman Paul Ryan’s immoral federal budget priorities and presented a faithful alternative. The Sisters on the bus received overwhelming popular support and extensive media coverage during their nine-state journey as they confronted Members of Congress who voted for the Ryan plan. As governors play political games with the well-being of vulnerable families, faith leaders need to mount this kind of pressure again and again in state after state.

This week, several Supreme Court decisions will have profound effects on our nation’s future, and people of faith are speaking up.

Yesterday the court overturned key sections of Arizona’s SB 1070, the anti-immigrant law faith leaders fought because it subjects Latinos to harassment, discrimination and profiling. Unfortunately, the court didn’t strike down one of the most dangerous parts of the law – the “show me your papers” provision requiring law enforcement officers verify the immigration status of people they stop. Religious leaders responded by expressing disappointment that the ruling still allows racial profiling, but also commended the justices for striking down the other provisions.

Thursday, the justices will announce their verdict on the Affordable Care Act. The outlook isn’t good. In a survey of 21 top legal scholars last week, 19 said the law’s individual coverage mandate was constitutional based on legal precedent, but only eight thought the justices will uphold the law in its entirety. The potential consequences are grave. Access to health insurance for tens of millions of people, the stability of our healthcare system, and the fate of people with pre-existing conditions and serious illnesses hang in the balance. If the law is overturned or weakened, Republicans who fought for repeal of “Obamacare” face an immediate moral responsibility to pass policies that ensure no one is harmed because of their partisan agenda.

During the healthcare debate of 2009 and 2010, Faith in Public Life and key religious partners mounted a multifaceted campaign to provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Within hours of the public launch of our effort, the conservative Family Research Council called it an “anti-faith, anti-family, anti-freedom agenda.” Throughout the debate Republican leaders and the Religious Right relentlessly distorted the legislation, calling it a “government takeover,” claiming that it included “death panels” and alleging that it provided taxpayer funding of abortion.

By the time the law finally passed, pro-health reform faith leaders had generated scores of vigils, hundreds of visits to Congress, thousands of media hits, millions of prayers, and crucial rebuttals to the Right’s dishonest rhetoric. It wasn’t in service of a partisan agenda, it was in accordance with our belief that all people, created in the image of God, deserve medical treatment for the illnesses and injuries we all face over the course of life. This conviction leads us to pray that the Supreme Court does the right thing on Thursday, and spurs us to action if they don’t.

Someone recently described Catholic sisters as having “a spine of steel and a compassionate heart.” I can think of no better description for women who selflessly dedicate their lives to the most vulnerable while confronting injustice.

Embroiled in a tense dispute with the Vatican and U.S. bishops over promoting “radical feminist themes,” the sisters are not backing down. On the contrary, they are launching a nationwide bus tour to assert their Gospel-driven mission by standing up for the poor and speaking out against Rep. Paul Ryan’s reckless budget proposal. Traveling to social service agencies, soup kitchens, and health clinics run by Catholic sisters, the bus tour will highlight nuns’ contributions to the common good and call for a more faithful budget proposal.

The Bishops Agree

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees with the sisters’ message of economic justice. They have repeatedly warned Congress not to slash food stamps, social services block grants, the child tax credit and other vital programs targeted in the House Republican budget. In their guidance to lawmakers, bishops have stated: “The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.” Rep. Ryan has dismissed these concerns and continues to insist that a disproportionate share of cuts must come from programs that serve lower-income Americans even as the wealthy are coddled with more tax breaks.

Will the Bishops Get on Board?

Part of the Catholic sisters’ strategy, then, is to encourage the bishops to use their megaphone and the bus tour opportunity to speak out more boldly against the Ryan budget. They plan to invite bishops whose dioceses they pass through to join them at events. But given that the bishops are dedicating enormous resources during that same time towards their “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign to protest the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, that plea may fall on deaf ears. In fact, the bishops’ overheated rhetoric has caused many to ask whether that campaign is just a thinly veiled partisan effort in an election year. It’s even causing some backlash among Catholics in the pews.

As the political courtship of Catholic voters heats up in this contentious election year, Catholic sisters are remaining true to their mission and elevating our values debate. I’m grateful for their courage and persistence.

But it’s also notable that relatively few leaders participated – only 13 of America’s 195 Catholic dioceses joined the suits. And in a move that was little noticed outside religious media, a prominent bishop expressed concern that the entire debate is being co-opted by right-wing groups bent on attacking President Obama.

That might sound like inside baseball, but it’s a clear sign of significant internal fissures over the Catholic bishops’ increasingly politicized confrontation against the Obama administration. As Republican politicians accuse the president of waging war on religious freedom and extremist religious leaders compare the administration to totalitarian dictatorships, a warning against partisanship is welcome news.

Amid all the hyperbolic claims about supposedly grave threats to religious liberty, it’s worth taking another look at the facts of the contraception coverage debate.

Last year the independent Institute of Medicine reviewed medical research and public comments about which health care services should be classified as essential preventive services to be covered without a copayment in health insurance plans. Contraception was identified as one of these services. This was an evidence-based health policy decision, not an ideological attack on religious liberty.

Recognizing that some religions consider contraception wrong, the Department of Health and Human Services carved out an exemption to this requirement for religious institutions. After many moderate faith leaders criticized the exemption as too narrow, the Obama administration offered a further accommodation ensuring that institutions such as religious schools, charities, social service providers and hospitals won’t be required to pay for contraception coverage for their employees. Final versions of these regulations are being formulated right now. Unfortunately, many of the loudest voices in this debate either pretend this accommodation was never offered or inaccurately dismiss it as an “accounting gimmick.”

This controversy isn’t going away, and it’s not just a Catholic issue. Some evangelical leaders have suggested that they will join the Catholic bishops’ upcoming “fortnight for freedom” campaign to mobilize Christians nationwide to stand against alleged threats to religious liberty. I hope moderate voices who prefer dialogue and good-faith negotiation over litigation and inflammatory rhetoric become more influential. The debate we’re having now is rooted more in politics than it is in reality.

The Buffett rule is fair, practical and responsible. Thousands of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than middle-income households. This is especially wrong when conservative ideologues are using the budget deficit as an excuse to cut off protections for the middle class and the poor, as well as defunding investments in future generations.

The arguments against the Buffett Rule are weak. Some say it’s “class warfare.” But if making sure hedge fund managers don’t get away with paying lower tax rates than teachers is class warfare, what does a class ceasefire look like? Others say it would hurt the economy by hitting small businesses and so-called “job creators.” Republicans and some conservative Democrats say this every time anyone proposes slightly raising taxes on rich people, but the facts simply do not bear it out.

The most common refrain from Republicans is that the Buffett Rule is a “gimmick” that won’t solve our national debt. No one claims the Buffett Rule alone will balance the budget – it’s simply one step in the right direction. And those who support Rep. Paul Ryan’s federal budget proposal really have no grounds to accuse others of fiscal gimmickry. The Ryan plan would practically dismantle the federal government other than the military and entitlements, and it relies on wishful claims about closing unnamed loopholes that supposedly offset the cost of still more gigantic tax breaks for millionaires.

Republicans make these empty arguments because the Buffett Rule exposes their true values. If you look at deeds rather than words, their most core political principle is an unbending dedication to making sure the richest Americans never see their taxes go up one cent. It’s nothing less than anti-tax fundamentalism.

Last week 59 Catholic theologians and social justice leaders rebuked Rep. Ryan for defending his radical budget plan on theological grounds, and yesterday the US Catholic Bishops slammed Republican leaders for eviscerating the safety net. Now that Republicans have voted yet again to put tax breaks for investment bankers before our fiscal health and the needs of American families, I expect the faith community’s drumbeat for economic fairness to grow even louder.

The incident drove home to me just how surreal our public dialogue about religion and politics has become. Given his extensive history of bigoted rhetoric and baseless attacks on the President’s faith, it’s a shame that Graham was invited on air in the first place. The media seems all too willing to manufacture political controversy by inflaming religious bigotry.

In the wake of Graham’s offensive comments, I joined more than 100 faith leaders in releasing a letter standing up for the President’s faith and condemning politically motivated attacks against it.  Faith leaders also held a press teleconference call to defend the President by pointing to their experiences working with the administration to strengthen their communities. Prominent evangelical pastor Joel Hunter penned an op-ed in The Hill explaining his personal, pastoral relationship with President Obama.

In addition to setting the record straight, our statements helped further the growing narrative that the faith community rejects the Religious Right’s political divisiveness. People of faith have spoken out continually on this matter. More than 20,000 members of Faithful America recently called on MSNBC to stop inviting Tony Perkins (head of Family Research Council, a Religious Right organization designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) onto their network. Earlier this month, more than 1,000 pastors signed a pledge to hold politicians accountable for religious attacks, and a diverse coalition of prominent religious groups released a statement calling on candidates to refrain from religiously divisive campaigning.

There’s plenty of room for reasonable differences of opinion on the appropriate uses of religion in politics. What sounds like authentic witness to some might sound like religious pandering to others. But personal attacks on individuals’ religious beliefs for political gain are clearly beyond the pale, and the vast majority of people of faith reject them. Let’s make sure the media and the Religious Right get the memo.

The argument for Santorum’s compassionate conservatism is that he talks about poverty as a moral issue on the campaign trail and his record as a lawmaker, at least on a few issues, jibes more with social justice Christianity than with Tea Party radicalism. Santorum stood up for lifesaving international aid at a GOP debate while others scored cheap political points by demonizing it. As a senator he strongly supported the PEPFAR program to combat AIDS in Africa and stood up for solutions that help the poor, such as debt relief and community health centers. These stances are commendable.

But when deciding whether a politician deserves to be called a compassionate conservative, we should examine how consistently he defends the most vulnerable and those at the margins.

Santorum’s compassion is very selective. He advocates breaking up immigrant families and opposes the DREAM Act. He calls climate change a liberal hoax. He supports torturing detainees in US custody. He endorsed Representative Paul Ryan’s immoral federal budget plan and says poor Americans should suffer more. And few politicians exhibit greater hostility toward gay and lesbian Americans.

Santorum also uses moral arguments to defend economic policies that harm struggling Americans. His unwavering defense of deregulating big business and huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy is standard fare for the GOP, but when it comes to helping poor Americans, he argues that protections for the unemployed and the working poor create dependency rather than help people get back on their feet. When job seekers outnumber jobs 4-to-1 and 49 million Americans are trapped in poverty, this sort of rhetoric is dangerous, misleading and insulting.

It’s a sad commentary on our nation’s politics when a record as uneven and troubling as Santorum’s enables him to seize the mantle of compassionate conservatism. A real compassionate conservative movement would be a welcome change from today’s radicalized GOP and a valuable contribution to addressing poverty and inequality. But this ain’t it.

The Bush administration, hawkish Congressional leaders in both parties and the news media face the harsh judgment of history for telling the world that Iraq constituted a just cause, a grave threat, and an easy win – none of which were true. At the onset of the invasion, more than 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th plot. That was no accident. It was the fruit of one of the most effective propaganda campaigns in American history.

Pleas for caution and peace from the faith community fell on deaf ears in Washington during the run-up to the invasion. And unfortunately, many religious leaders either remained silent or helped build the drumbeat for war. Prominent conservative Christian thinkers such as Chuck Colson and George Weigel, along with numerous influential pastors, all spoke in support of military action. One month after the war began, 87 percent of white evangelicals approved of the decision to invade Iraq. Even in 2006, when sectarian bloodshed and U.S. casualties spiraled out of control, only a minority of weekly church attenders said the war was a mistake.

The abuses and torture at Abu Ghraib prison shocked the nation’s conscience and provided a terrifying testament to the evil that war unleashes. The images of the victims and torturers outraged the faith community. Faithful America and the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, which brought together ideologically and theologically diverse faith leaders, were founded in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib and raised a powerful witness against human rights abuses.

As America’s post-Iraq War era begins, we have an obligation not only to support innocent civilian victims and care for our veterans (who face unemployment, post-traumatic stress and numerous other challenges), but also to learn from our mistakes and reexamine our attitudes toward war. Although our government bears most of the blame, citizens of the most powerful nation in the world have a responsibility to approach war with great reluctance and skepticism, not eagerness and credulity. Clergy have a special obligation to ensure that we learn this lesson.

Following the defeat of a radical “fetal personhood” ballot initiative on Election Day in Mississippi, another abortion legislation battle looms in Ohio, where the state Senate is considering H.B. 125, which would make performing an abortion a felony if a fetal heartbeat is detectible. Such a far-reaching restriction would likely lead to a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. Republican Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder even admitted that “we’re writing bills for courts.”

As the New York Times reports, the legislation is dividing social conservatives:

Ohio Right to Life, which has been the premier lobby, and the state Catholic conference have refused to support the measure, arguing that the court is not ready for such a radical step and that it could cause a legal setback. But the idea has stirred the passions of some traditional leaders, even winning the endorsement of Dr. John C. Willke of Cincinnati, the former president of National Right to Life and one of the founders of the modern anti-abortion movement.

At issue is a strategic difference about whether to continue the traditional approach of incrementally restricting abortion — which has steadily narrowed access in dozens of states — or to make an immediate, direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by outright criminalizing abortion. This divide is more than a momentary split – it’s a schism that signals an intensification and radicalization of the abortion debate.

Making abortion a felony in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade (as Ohio’s H.B. 125 would do), and restricting contraception and outlawing abortion even in cases of rape (as Mississippi’s fetal personhood amendment would have done), would bring the issue back into the partisan spotlight just in time for an election year. Similar legislation is in the works in at least ten other states, which leads the debate away from finding common ground and toward greater polarization than we’ve seen in decades.

In the context of the upcoming elections, it’ll be fascinating to see whether the usual pro-life boilerplate and vague assurances about “activist judges” suffice when controversial, concrete measures are on the agenda and division grows among opponents of abortion.

But regardless, this political dance does nothing for the women facing the difficult circumstances that lead to abortion. Doubling down on stalemated federal court battles and drastically cutting protections for vulnerable families instead of preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting those facing economic hardship is a recipe for polarization, not progress. Thankfully there are also people of good will on both sides of the abortion debate working on pragmatic solutions.

Photo credit: katerkate, Flickr

Earlier this month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who subscribes to Ayn Rand’s anti-Christian ideology of selfishness, even told CNN that since we all “work for rich people” it won’t help the economy to “punish rich people.” But the wealthy aren’t exactly in need of a break. The federal income tax rate for the 400 wealthiest Americans fell from about 30 percent in 1995 to 18 percent in 2008. A recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that a quarter of U.S. millionaires pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than many middle-class families.

Thankfully, there’s a new voice for middle-class families in Occupy Wall Street. While not long ago the Tea Party and conservative ideologues dominated national political debates over debt, taxes and government spending, Occupy Wall Street is shifting the debate towards jobs, inequality, and opportunity.

A groundbreaking recent statement from the Vatican calling for more robust regulation of the global financial sector and a financial transactions tax also made a potent moral argument for economic fairness and the common good. And it seems that top Democrats in Congress are sensing the shifting cultural and political winds made possible by this steady moral drumbeat and are focusing on jobs and income inequality as the leading issues heading into 2012.

We have a responsibility to hold politicians accountable when they ignore or distort basic economic reality, and to ensure that they put the needs of families before the desires of the wealthiest 1%.