SOURCE: Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP

Zosia Mamet, left, Lena Dunham, center, and Allison Williams pose with the award for best television series – comedy or musical for "Girls" backstage at the 70th Annual Golden Globe Awards at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on Sunday, January 13, 2013, in Beverly Hills, California.

Although I’m decades past the target demographic of “Girls”—the HBO series that has triggered devotion, discomfort, and criticism in its two seasons on the air—I’m a faithful viewer, brimming with likes and hates about the show’s friendships, jobs, sex, clothes, parents, and apartments.

Besides all that, there’s another aspect of “Girls” that feels worth noting—its uniform worldview. Although the secular universe of “Girls” is vastly different from the strict Calvinist one that I was raised in, the show feels familiar to me. Both the worlds of “Girls” and the one of my religious childhood are insular and tribal. Both have moral codes that seem to the inhabitants to be universally true while in actuality they are culturally specific.

In “Girls,” the highest good is self-expression. The greatest wrong is to judge someone else. Combine the two and you get a moral code that encourages experimentation, adventure, edginess, and transgression—no matter how demeaning or risky these things might be.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the main characters on “Girls” question or debate these values. Nor have I seen minor characters pose contrary views in any significant way. Seeing that kind of interplay would be a breath of fresh air—as would seeing characters who are more racially and economically diverse.

Lena Dunham, the creator of “Girls,” got a lot of criticism during the first season of her show for having an all-white cast. After all, her characters are 20-somethings—the most diverse generation in history—living in New York City. You’d have to wear blinders not to see the vibrant differences around you. To her credit, Dunham responded honestly to the criticism last year, saying she took it seriously and that she never meant for the show to feel exclusionary.

To be sure, it’s not Dunham’s obligation—or the obligation of any artist, for that matter—to replicate the Census Bureau in her characters or mimic news headlines in her plots. But it is strange and disappointing that she has so limited her imagination. Including characters who aren’t like her doesn’t require storylines about race theory, economic inequality, or working-class history. What it does require is curiosity—the urge to go outside familiar boundaries and capture the conflicts, hopes, and dreams of more than one strain of young people in New York City. Doing that increases the odds that a viewer will say “ah-hah” in recognition.

The term “diversity” too often carries the smell of political correctness, as if it’s somehow opposed to creativity, while in fact, it can spur the creative urge by being one more tool in the kit. That’s one reason why universities, businesses, and the military actively seek out diversity in their ranks. They want a creative and competitive edge, and a good way to accomplish that is to mix it up. The United States has one of the most diverse populations in the world, which gives us a leg up in the global economy. We’ve learned better than most other countries how to work and live side by side.

But it’s not just economics and politics where diversity thrives. Biodiversity is a hallmark of a healthy ecosystem. Even when it comes to matters of finance and investments, diversity is seen as a healthy thing. And it’s essential to a well-balanced financial portfolio.

The Calvinist world I grew up in was a monochromatic place filled with pale Dutch immigrants who spouted a uniform code of conduct and belief. As a child, I thought that it was the world. But it was actually just a small community in New Jersey, only 12 miles from New York City. I hopped on a bus as soon as I could and explored that amazing city block by block. That’s where Lena Dunham lives. I hope next season she gets out a little more.

Sally Steenland is Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Steenland, a best-selling author, former newspaper columnist, and teacher, explores the role of religion and values in the public sphere.

SOURCE: AP/Charlie Neibergall

Sister Simone Campbell, right, speaks to supporters during a stop on the first day of the "Nuns on the Bus" tour, Monday, June 18, 2012, in Ames, Iowa.

Last week I took on the quixotic task of promoting a nun for pope by covering my office door with stickers: “Vote for hope, justice, joy!”, and “Yes, she can!”

These homemade feisty signs boost the impossible election of Sister Simone Campbell to be head of the Catholic Church worldwide. For those unfamiliar with Sister Simone, she created and led the “Nuns on the Bus” tour last summer, where she and fellow nuns grabbed headlines and drew huge crowds for defending faith-based charities that would’ve been devastated by the harsh cuts proposed in Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) House Republican budget. Last September Sister Simone gave a primetime address at the Democratic National Convention and received a standing ovation. For more than 40 years, she has devoted her life to helping those who are poor and disenfranchised, aiming to emulate the gospel message of lifting up “the least of these.”

But Sister Simone is a woman, which disqualifies her—and tens of millions of other Catholic women—from any ordained leadership positions in the church. This blocked path is both misguided and ironic, given the fact that the labor and leadership of nuns, along with lay women, has been crucial in building the church and its charitable arms over the centuries.

Dorothy Day, a social activist, journalist, and devout Catholic convert, founded the Catholic Worker Movement in the 1930s, and its social-justice mission continues today. As for nuns, the first one arrived on our shores from France in 1727, decades before we were a nation. Since then nuns have served as nurses, teachers, lawyers, social workers, administrators, and pioneers. They have run hospitals, social service agencies, churches, schools, universities, and old-age homes. An upcoming book, Called to Serve: A History of Nuns in America by Margaret M. McGuinness, says that although bishops usually get the credit for building Catholic institutions, “they simply couldn’t have operated without nuns.”

Most other faith traditions no longer prohibit women’s ordination. Even so, the number of women in their leadership ranks is low. Only 10 percent of senior pastors in Protestant churches are women—and that’s double what it was in the 1990s. One reason that the 2006 election of Katharine Jefforts Schori to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in America was such a big deal is because she was the first woman to lead the church in the Anglican Communion worldwide.

Are women doing better in the business and corporate world? Hardly. Only 20 of the Fortune 500 companies—a measly 4 percent—have female CEOs, which means you can count these female corporate heads on your fingers and toes. The picture isn’t much better in the political arena either, as women comprise a mere 18 percent of Congress and 10 percent of governors.

In politics and business, only 1 in 10 leaders is female, which makes them a rare breed. When you consider that women make up 50.8 percent of the U.S. population, their virtual invisibility in the top ranks is seriously wrong.

First of all, having more women leaders strengthens business and the economy. In a review of 100 U.S. companies, McKinsey and Company found that those with at least three women in top positions ranked higher than their counterparts on nine traits linked to “well-functioning organizations.” What’s more, when the McKinsey Women Matter team asked global executives to rate the most important leadership traits for success, the top four qualities they listed—intellectual stimulation, inspiration, participatory decision making, and setting expectations/rewards—were more likely to be found in women leaders than men. To top it off, a study by Catalyst, a nonprofit that focuses on women’s leadership in business, found that Fortune 500 companies with women on their boards performed better financially than those without female board members.

These statistics are certainly impressive. But they shouldn’t lead us to conclude that only female superstars get to be leaders. A woman shouldn’t have to be twice as good as a man to get the same job. Simple fairness says that being equally qualified is good enough.

Back to Catholics and their search for a new leader. Common sense says that the skills and talents needed for spiritual leadership are possessed by Catholic women as well as men. And given the dire shortage of priests in the United States and worldwide, it seems foolish to ignore such a rich—and greatly needed—talent pool. American Catholics agree. In a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 7 in 10 American Catholic voters said that women should be ordained as priests and priests should be able to marry.

Soon after Pope Benedict XVI resigned, Sister Simone Campbell got calls from reporters asking her views on the selection of a new pope. She spoke of qualities she hoped he would have, including the capacity to deal with the modern world and a devotion to justice. More than one reporter asked if she were going to Rome to be part of the voting conclave. After all, she was a national figure of importance in the church. “No,” she had to tell them. “I’m a woman and none of us gets to vote.”

She’s right—at least for now. But a church can’t hold off the modern world forever and keep its flock. Here’s hoping the next pope grasps that eternal truth.

Sally Steenland is Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Steenland, a best-selling author, former newspaper columnist, and teacher, explores the role of religion and values in the public sphere.

SOURCE: AP/Carolyn Kaster

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks about the FY 2014 budget resolution during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2013.

Download this document (PDF)

In the wake of the release of the 2013 budget by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a diverse group of distinguished faith leaders have come together to condemn the budget’s immoral cuts to services aiding the nation’s poor and continued tax breaks for the wealthy and special interests. Below are quotes on the Ryan budget from a range of clergy and religious leaders representing congregations, denominations, and faith-based organizations.

Rev. Dr. Brad Braxton, senior pastor at The Open Church, Baltimore, Maryland, and Lois Craddock Perkins, professor of homiletics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas:

Every pastor knows that a budget is both a moral document and a financial document. The Ryan budget would not only cut lifesaving programs for the most vulnerable in our society, but it would also call into question the very moral fiber of this nation. This budget seeks not to expand liberty but to contract it—and, in the process, render null and void the social contract we have signed with our nation’s children and elders. We must write and pass a budget that lives up to the moral identity of our nation, not one that decimates our neighborhoods, despises our poor, and declares that the young and old of this country are on their own.

Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK and founder of Nuns on the Bus:

Last year we “Nuns on the Bus” traveled thousands of miles to connect directly with communities where the devastating effects of Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal would be felt. We had already strongly protested his budget cuts since it was clear they would harm already struggling families. During our journey we listened to the personal stories of those families and our hearts were deeply touched. Today we are convinced more than ever that the voices of the people must be heard and that Rep. Ryan’s cuts to vital human-needs programs to benefit the wealthy must be defeated. We are a nation for the 100 percent, and his budget cuts are both immoral and counter to our values.

Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño, The United Methodist Church, Los Angeles area:

The House Republican budget cuts away at vital social services that affect the poor and those who are barely able to meet the basic needs of their families. Our national budget reflects our core moral values and we will not recover economically until we address our unjust approach to budgeting. People living on the economic margins must be treated with care and dignity if we are to ever hope to have a just and effective national budget.

Rabbi Laurie Coskey, Ed.D., executive director of the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, San Diego, California:

Our representatives in the House and Senate are elected, inaugurated, and anointed to the sacred responsibility of serving the common good through public office. As leaders of diverse faith communities, we urge them to protect the “least among us”—the children, the infirm, the poor, and the vulnerable. Members of our congregations depend upon our chosen representatives to hear their cries of suffering and to work collaboratively to pass a Moral Budget. May it reflect the highest values and priorities of family, community, state, and a just society.

Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, president of the House of Deputies of The Episcopal Church:

Across traditions and cultures, people of faith are commanded to care for the poor and vulnerable among us. In the United States today, this means more than 32 million children who live in poor or low-income households. Our federal budget should fight the evil of childhood poverty by funding programs like food stamps, housing assistance, child care, and Medicaid at levels that children need to grow up healthy and strong. If the House Republican budget fails to care for our children, then it fails one of the greatest moral tests that God has given to faithful people.

Sr. Anne Marie Mack, CBS, Bon Secours Richmond Health System:

We look to our elected leaders to provide for the “common good” for all, including the most poor and vulnerable among us and we ask that our political parties support a budget that passes a “basic moral test.” Will it help lift up those most in need and help them to get out of poverty? We urge action against the House Republican budget as one of moral necessity. We must ensure that all individuals and families have access to the care they need throughout their lives regardless of their economic status and social condition.

Rev. Bryan Massingale, professor of theological ethics at Marquette University and a past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America:

Budget cuts that fall hardest on the working poor are simply irresponsible and immoral. I applaud Rep. Ryan’s interest in Catholic teaching, but it’s impossible to reconcile that concern with his budget proposals that would decimate vital social safety nets that Catholic leaders helped create and defend today.

Sr. Monica McGloin, OP, Ohio Nuns on the Bus, Cincinnati, Ohio:

Rep. Paul Ryan’s original budget proposal did not measure up to Catholic Social Teaching and it is unlikely that his third attempt will do better. Catholic Social Teaching stresses the community and the common good, which I understand to mean that we have a responsibility to care for and about one another. Privatizing Medicare and cutting social support programs while protecting the very wealthy in our society destroys the very fabric of community. Our budget must reflect our values and build the community our ancestors envisioned, “All people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Brian D. McLaren, author, speaker, and activist:

A lot of people are talking about the “generational theft” inherent in an unsustainable budget deficit, and this is indeed a needed discussion. But too few are talking about “demographic theft,” by which the wealthiest people at the top of the pyramid own a larger and larger share of wealth, leaving the poorest among us with next to nothing. We must oppose all proposed solutions to “generational theft” that aid and abet “demographic theft,” and a good way to start is by guaranteeing, from the start, the most protection for the most vulnerable.

Vincent Miller, the Gudorf chair in Catholic theology and culture at the University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio:

Rep. Paul Ryan returns with yet another hard-hearted and shortsighted budget. This radical rejection of our government’s obligations to the common good denies our young workers Medicare’s guarantee of coverage in old age and sacrifices the most vulnerable to preserve unsustainable tax cuts for the wealthiest few. Rep. Ryan’s libertarian ideology would make Ayn Rand proud, but can never be justified by Catholic teaching or Gospel values.

Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, former moderator of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):

This budget, if pursued and passed, will send a message, in both tone and tactic, that our government is more concerned with protecting those who control wealth and privilege than supporting those upon whom that wealth and privilege has been built. As a person of faith, as a citizen of the United States, and as a human being, this is simply unacceptable and I urge Congress to reject Rep. Ryan’s budget.

Bishop Gene Robinson, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress:

Every world religion describes a God who will judge us by the way we treat the most vulnerable among us. The prophets of the Jewish scriptures, and certainly Jesus, would have much to say about the impending cuts to the most vulnerable brought on by the Ryan budget. And it wouldn’t be pretty! People of faith need to stand up to a Congress that would “save” the economy on the backs of the poor, the disabled, and the vulnerable.

This document is a joint product of the Half in Ten Education Fund, the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative, and Faith in Public Life.

Listen to the interview here (mp3)

This interview is part of a series profiling leaders of the Faith and Reproductive Justice Leadership Institute, a project of CAP’s Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative. The Institute provides training and resources to faith-based leaders working on reproductive justice in order to strengthen and raise the visibility of their work. You can learn more about this project here.

Samantha Griffin works at the Black Women’s Health Imperative, where she manages research on the reproductive health access and choice of black women and Latinas. She also facilitates trainings on issues critical to women’s health such as HPV, HIV, sexual health, and breast cancer. She worked at the Young Women’s Project, where she recruited and trained youth educators and advocates. Samantha is a council member of Sisters in Serenity at Union Bethel A.M.E. Church and the vice chair of the Women’s Information Network, a pro-choice Democratic women’s organization.

Sally Steenland: A lot of people are talking about the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Some say that there is a generational split in the reproductive rights movement and that Millennials either don’t care as much about the issue as older women or are not as pro-choice. But the work you do seems to refute that notion.

Samantha Griffin: You know, Sally, this conversation is so interesting to me. I think some of it stems from the reality that Millennial women have not known a world without legal abortion in the United States. So there’s this concept that since we didn’t suffer in the same way and we were fortunate never to have to go to back alleys with any sort of regularity that we aren’t as protective of those rights. But I think that because of our blessedness that it’s the opposite.

We have always known a world where it’s legal for a woman to make choices about her pregnancy and her preparedness to parent, and we don’t want to go back. Some of the conversation stems from surveys that say Millennial women don’t know what Roe v. Wade is. I thought that was sort of amusing because when you think about the state of American education and our history classes—I mean, how many people know individual court cases? That’s just not what many of us are focused on.

But although the language may be different, we know it’s so important for a woman to have bodily autonomy and be able to decide what’s right for her, what’s right for her family, and we consistently show up when there are battles around choice.

We showed up for Planned Parenthood when it was going to be defunded. The fact that the organization is able to continue and not only provide abortion care but other reproductive services—including contraception and many important screenings—as well is largely because of the activism of Millennial women. We showed up online, we marched, we donated. Planned Parenthood funding went up because of us and because we care. I think we always need to be talking about intergenerational things, and that’s going to continue as long as there are progressive movements. But the concept that because in whatever survey they [the Pew Research Center] did of particular Millennial women, the women couldn’t identify a court case—I think that’s a bit off-base.

SS: That’s a very good point. You talk about activism, advocacy, online organizing, social media. What are some of the unique gifts that Millennials bring to this debate?

SG: I think we bring a lot, including the fact that we’re so comfortable with technology and can connect in ways that were unfathomable even 10 years ago. I could go and talk to a feminist in Egypt online if I want to. Right now, I could log on and do that. That connects us in ways that make it much easier to mobilize very quickly. We’re the most diverse generation that America has seen yet, and that’s only going to continue. We grew up in schools and in communities where we were in touch with people that were not like ourselves.

Many of us know the importance of inclusivity, and when we talk about reproductive justice, we are talking about more than abortion. That may actually get to your earlier question about why some of us may not identify with pro-choice. Millennials, we don’t like labels. We tend to reject anything that boxes us in. And so when we talk about reproductive justice, we’re talking about it in the broadest and truest sense. The right of every woman, in every family to control what their family looks like—if they’re going to parent, when they’re going to parent. We have gone beyond the choice model to include things such as gay marriage. We believe in transgender rights. And I think that’s incredibly valuable for the movement.

SS: I’m intrigued by your idea of clicking on your computer right now and chatting with a feminist in Egypt. That has huge implications. By connecting with women around the world, what does that do to the work at home? Is there a stronger global connection?

SG: I think it has huge implications for how we do our work. Say that I am interested in HIV education, for instance. I’m not just thinking of it from my office here in D.C. I can think about it across the country. What are other states doing? Are they moving toward a more comprehensive sexual-health curriculum? What are they doing across the world?

SS: Maybe we’re less likely to stereotype other cultures because they don’t look like us. Maybe we’re less likely to impose a Western or American model of feminism.

SG: Absolutely. I would very much agree with that.

SS: I want to ask about your job at the Black Women’s Health Imperative. You operate at the local and the national level. What are some of your top projects this year, and what are some of the challenges you are facing?

SG: Well, we are actually celebrating our 30th anniversary.

SS: Congratulations!

SG: Thank you so much. We’ll be celebrating in October. And I am not at liberty to release the details on that, but it’s going to be really exciting.

The Black Women’s Health Imperative was founded in the concept of reproductive justice. That is our grounding. It’s the idea that black women need to be able to control their bodies, their own wellness, and their own lifestyle—whether that’s sexual health and reproductive rights or something such as chronic diseases.

What we’re doing this year is getting back to that grounding in reproductive justice. We’re going back to the basics. We are specifically focusing on sexual health and reproductive justice as one priority issue area. The other issue area we’re focusing on is lifestyle change. And the two issue areas are working in tandem because as we know, in order to make choices about our families and our reproduction and our sexuality, we need to be in a well and whole state of mind.

SS: That sounds exciting. So we’ll be on the lookout for news this coming October. Happy birthday Black Women’s Health Imperative!

SG: Thank you, Sally. I’ll pass that on.

SS: I want to ask about the Leadership Institute that you’ve been a part of all of this past year. As you know, the Center for American Progress has a Faith and Reproductive Justice Leadership Institute, and you’ve been one of the key leaders and participants. We’ve been talking about reproductive justice so far. Faith is another key component, but lots of times people don’t see the link between the two.

SG: For me, the link is inextricable. The story that I love to tell when questions such as this come up is that my first sexual education was actually in a Sunday school classroom. It was my mom. She was a youth minister in the African Methodist Episcopal church. And looking back, they were actually being very forward thinking and progressive. It was in the late 90s, when black churches decided that they needed to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic that was and still is doing damage in our communities. They decided to do a program called “Keeping It Real, What’s the 411?”

At the time, it was very “hip” language. It was really on point. And so in that class, I was taught that sexuality is a beautiful thing. And it is divinely sanctioned. It’s not this shameful, secretive thing, and it’s so unfortunate that many people don’t believe that their faiths and their realities as sexual beings can coexist.

My faith embraces the right of everyone to have pleasure and to also have bodily control over themselves to create relationships and family structures that are best for each of us. So when it comes to reproductive justice, if sex is a good thing, then the product of that is also potentially a good thing. And so whether a woman decides that should be a child, or whether it is intimacy and a relationship, that’s a decision that’s best left up to her and her God. We can’t intrude on that divine relationship. God created us to be sexual and to relate to one other in that intimate way. And that’s a good thing. So how can we shame women for needing to make their own decisions after having sex?

SS: That sounds absolutely right. You’re talking about something that’s divine and sacred, and intruding on that with politics from some outsider feels profane.

SG: To me, it absolutely does. Whether it’s government or society, to enforce something on a woman in the midst of this beautiful, intimate thing—I can’t imagine it. I can’t imagine being punitive in that way.

SS: There’s been a lot of talk about religious liberty lately, especially with the contraceptive-coverage mandate in the new health care law. Some religious groups don’t want to provide that coverage and are claiming that it violates religious liberty. But the way you’re talking now, it seems that for somebody to make those decisions is a core violation of your religious liberty.

SG: I completely agree. If we are going to be a true democracy and believe in the separation of church and state, then no one else’s church gets to have more importance than mine—or than someone who has a completely different set of values than mine. I think that faith is such an individual thing, and that’s a beautiful thing about our country. We should not ever change that—particularly when it comes to such a private, personal matter as my own family planning.

SS: Somebody’s free to say that they think you’re wrong or even to say that they think you’re a sinner. But what they’re not free to do is take that theological belief and make that a law.

SG: Absolutely. It’s important we bring these conversations into the public square. I think that’s one of the most wonderful things about the Leadership Institute. It gives us all an opportunity to air some things and talk about them. It’s great to learn. But it’s not great to take those beliefs and trample upon anyone else. America is this great social experiment. We’re still in the midst of it. And we have to learn to get along with one another.

SS: I have another Leadership Institute question. Around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, you and your fellow leaders released a public statement on what you believe about faith and reproductive justice. You call for faith communities to be advocates on this issue. There are a range of things that faith communities and faith leaders can do in terms of their own congregations and in the public square.

SG: The Leadership Institute has been transformative for me in that it’s given me the concept of bringing my whole self to both to my faith work and the work I do in reproductive justice. I think one of the most important things that any person of faith can do is to come out about that. I know that coming-out language is usually used in terms of sexuality, but we can’t be quiet people of faith if we’re going to do this work with integrity.

It’s important for the people you work with—maybe at a clinic and you’re part of an escort program [which assists women entering abortion clinics while antiabortion advocates are staging a protest]—it’s important that they know you’re doing this work out of a place of faith. And by the same token, faith leaders who are clergy members—I think it’s important that they bring their progressivism and their beliefs in reproductive justice into the pulpit. I think that those are opportunities we’ve missed, and we’ve allowed regressive faith leaders to take the reins and define in this country what it is that people of faith think about women’s health and sexuality.

I’ve done work at my church’s women’s ministry. In the churches that I’ve belonged to, women’s ministries can be thriving places of communities. I would love to see more women’s ministries address the issue of sexuality and reproductive health and provide a space for women to talk about their experiences. I mean, statistically, one in three women have terminated a pregnancy. So that means in our congregations, in our pews, and in our mosques, there are women who have terminated pregnancies, and we should make our places of faith places where women feel safe.

It’s important validation for the decisions they’re making, if all they’re used to hearing when it comes to religion and their bodies is that things are shameful and dangerous, and pregnancy can be this punishment. I can imagine that would be very hurtful for a woman. So I would love to see women’s ministries become a place of healing—if that’s needed—and celebration about the choices we are making.

SS: This has been an inspiring conversation for me. And yet we know that there are obstacles to the work that you do. In states across this country, there are more and more laws making it harder for a woman to exercise her God-given rights in terms of parenting and children. So when you face these obstacles and the everyday grind, what gets you up in the morning and gives you energy to get you through your day? What gives you hope?

SG: The simple answer is relationships. Relationships give me energy, they give me hope. They remind me of the importance of the work, and coming from a place of faith, the most important relationship for me is with my God. So that is energizing. In addition to that, your question is timely because of an event last night at the Women’s Information Network, which is a community of pro-choice democratic women about 1,100 strong.

We had this amazing event that honored 48 young women who are pro-choice and Democratic here in the D.C. area and who are doing incredible work. Of course, that means that they’re Millennials, so we’re coming full circle. It was so exciting to hear about the work they’re doing. Women are organizing politically in their communities around labor issues and violence against women. They’re doing these incredible things, and to see them gives me inspiration.

It makes me want to keep going—and not only keep going but run faster. I’m so inspired by my peers right now, and today I’m just vibrating with excitement about what the world can be if women are given the opportunity—or more accurately, if women take the opportunity to continue to move forward and stand on the side of one another. So I’m energized by the women around me—and the men, in some cases.

SS: Well, that’s a perfect note to end on, because March is Women’s Month and March 8 is International Women’s Day. It’s a celebration of women around the world and in our communities. You just gave a great shout out to the women you work with. Thank you so much for your work. It’s really crucial.

SG: Thank you so much, Sally, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about it.

This interview was edited for clarity and length.

Sally Steenland is Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. For more on this initiative, please see its project page.

SOURCE: AP/Sava Radovanovic

Fatima Nevic kisses her baby boy after a seven-hour labor in a Sarajevo hospital.

There are perhaps few things that liberals and conservatives can agree on these days. One of them is that strong families are essential to the well-being of society and the health of a nation. A related area of agreement is that investments aimed at strengthening families provide a big pay-off in both the short and long terms.

One of the best ways to strengthen families—both in the United States and globally—is to guarantee access to family planning. Women are healthier when they can space the births of their children, and their babies are healthier too. Poverty rates go down and education rates go up.

Here’s more good news: According to a 2010 study by the United Nations Population Fund, the number of women who die annually in pregnancy and childbirth has dropped by almost half over the past two decades—from 543,000 deaths to 287,000 deaths a year. But the study also shows that much more still needs to be done. A woman dies of pregnancy-related complications every two minutes; 99 percent of these deaths occur in developing countries and most could have been prevented. The four most common causes of maternal death are infection, high blood pressure while pregnant, severe bleeding after giving birth, and unsafe abortions.

Faith-based initiatives are among the many organizations that provide family planning and reproductive health services in developing countries. Christian Connections for International Health is one example—a network of more than 200 faith-based organizations that work on international family-planning issues, including contraceptives. Faith-based groups—including members of Christian Connections for International Health and leaders from Muslim organizations such as Muhammadiyah—attended a family-planning summit in London this past summer that was organized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to explore ways of strengthening faith-based efforts in family-planning service delivery and advocacy.

In Kenya, Christian community health workers are collaborating with faith-based hospitals to teach family-planning methods, including the use of condoms and birth-control pills, which they provide as a part of their daily work. According to Lauren VanEnk at the Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University, these hospitals “fully recognize the integral role that family planning plays in improving maternal and child health as well as relieving the economic burden many families experience when they are unable to plan their families.”

With a steady local presence and providers who are known and trusted, faith-based groups are able to provide essential services in communities around the world. The efforts of these groups are grounded in spiritual values. The belief that human rights and dignity are God given, the importance of enriching and nurturing human life, the need to reduce suffering, the right to physical and mental health—these are values shared by many different faith traditions, and they provide a solid basis for collaboration.

Here in the United States, the United Methodist church has long been a leader in the fight for maternal and child health. At its general conference last year, the church passed a resolution to support global initiatives on maternal health and to raise awareness about the issue in the pews. The Healthy Families, Healthy Planet initiative aims to educate and mobilize United Methodists on the importance of international family planning and maternal health. The initiative has conducted regional trainings across the nation and created 75 ambassadors in 18 states to work within their congregations and communities for greater political and financial support for international family planning and maternal health.

Last fall the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good released a public statement in support of family planning on religious grounds.  “A Call to Christian Common Ground on Family Planning, and Maternal, and Children’s Health” says that family planning should be accessible to women “in every part of the world.” The statement points out that family planning saves women’s lives, strengthens families, reduces abortion, and promotes human flourishing.

In addition, the Religious Institute released a public letter last fall supporting family planning as a moral imperative. Thirty-eight leaders from diverse faith traditions crafted and signed the letter. “All persons should be free to make personal decisions about their families and reproductive lives that are informed by their culture, faith tradition, religious beliefs, conscience, and community,” said Rev. Debra W. Haffner, president of the Religious Institute. Also, the Institute sponsors the Rachael Sabbath Initiative, a project that aims to reduce maternal mortality and promote universal access to reproductive health services.

Through the efforts of faith groups such as these and their collaboration with global health organizations, we can work to ensure that maternal mortality rates will continue to drop and that more women across the globe will experience pregnancy and childbirth as healthy and joyful, which is their God-given right.

Sally Steenland is Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Steenland, a best-selling author, former newspaper columnist, and teacher, explores the role of religion and values in the public sphere.