We received an email from Catholics for Choice on Obama's appointment of Alexia Kelley to serve as the Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services - and unlike Kathleen Sebelius' recent confirmation to head HHS, it's no news to be celebrating.
Kelley is the co-founder of the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), an organization that not only has publicly acknowledged their opposition to abortion (here's an extensive PDF of their anti-choice history) but also supports reducing access to abortion care. This is a much different tune than the administration's supposed stance on reproductive rights, which is to reduce the need for abortion.) Catholics for Choice President Jon O'Brien says:
"If Ms. Kelley had been appointed to another position in the administration, there might be less reason for concern. However, the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for providing and expanding access to key sexual and reproductive health services. As such, we need those working in HHS to rely on evidence-based methods to reduce the need for abortion. We need them to believe in men's and women's capacity to make moral decisions about their own lives. Unfortunately, as seen from her work at CACG, Ms. Kelley does not fit the bill."From the beginning, Alexia Kelley directed CACG to ignore the question of access to abortion and reframe the debate in terms of reducing the number of abortions--although polls consistently show that the majority of Catholics support abortion rights. This language around reducing the number of abortions should be a huge red flag to anyone who believes in and seeks to defend a woman's right to choose. While evidence-based prevention methods can go a long way towards reducing the need for abortion, some women will always need access to safe and legal abortion and we must recognize that and ensure public policies support that access."
CACG has seemed to identify themselves in the past as more of a progressive religious organization (although technically nonpartisan), a stand-out among (and even left out of) the other mainstream Catholic organizations in the country. But when it comes to abortion, that's hardly the case. Sarah Posner at TAPPED points out that in Kelley's co-authored book last year, she wrote this on abortion: "Each abortion constitutes a direct attack on human life, and so we have a special moral obligation to end or reduce the practice of abortion to the greatest extent possible." And while the organization and Kelley skirts around the issue of legalization, they've made it clear they're for abortion restrictions.
It's no news that has been a really bad week for the reproductive health world. And this just makes me so much sadder. Maybe Obama thinks appointing Kelley will alleviate the strong tensions right now, conservatives will get off his ass about Sebelius and we'll all reach a "common ground" around the abortion debate that has led the conversation as of late. But I think "'common ground' is pipe dream," as Amanda says, contending that we're not going to eliminate the need for abortions by relieving women's financial problems. (Which is partly what the "common ground" idea supports.) And as O'Brien also points out, CACG even used flawed economic research to push for anti-poverty measures as a way of reducing abortion.
But this is just not going to work, and neither is Kelley if she ends up having control over policies around reproductive health in this country. And it looks like she very well may - according to the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives website, the department assists faith-based organizations in attaining partnerships with and getting funding from the federal government, which includes family planning grants.
The only comforting part of this appointment is that Kathleen Sebelius will be her boss.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: HHS Faith-Based Office to be Led by Anti-Choicer .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14141
Why do we have "faith-based" offices in our government? Why do our tax dollars go to fund and pay fir "faith based" initiatives? This violates separation of church and state and should be outlawed.
Secular does not mean "multi-religional". Obama needs to reverse this Bush era policy.
Same reason tax dollars and positions of power exist for/go to things like public boating access or maintaining state and federal public camping areas, and so on. How many people do you think actually go to the library?
A significant enough number of our tax-paying populace enjoys camping, or boating, or going to church, or any number of activities people occupy their spare time with that they feel entitled to have a voice in the federal government.
You can't expect your interests and voice to he heard and not opposing one's as well.
I don't remember a "separation of boating and state" in the founding principles of America....
Being secular means the government is neutral and has no activities in any religious institution/group/organization. This is why religious institutions are tax exempt.
No one's tax dollars should be going to a church, mosque, or temple, or to a religious based organization, which, by the way, are allowed to be exclusionary in their membership, hiring, and projects (i.e., a Jewish organization can refuse to hire a Catholic, a Muslim one can refuse to hire a woman, etc.)
So, not the same reasons. We are a secular democracy, meaning no public funds to religious activities. Bush tried to change this with "Faith bases initiatives". They tried this in the UK several years ago as well...
...and now they have Sharia law.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As long as this office stays in the executive branch they are an advisory role. Neither judicial nor legislative.
That has nothing to do with our tax dollars paying for project which are influenced and run by religious dogma...which should be illegal.
It's entries like this that make me feel disconnected from this site. The anti-religious (particularly anti-Catholic) sentiment that you'll find here is enough to scare away any Catholic woman who is considering feminism. And I'm saying this as a firmly pro-choice, pro-queer feminist.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good IS a progressive organization on a lot of issues. I hate that they're anti-choice, but I would appreciate more nuance and less venom when it comes to writing about religious issues on this site.
I'm truly sorry if this made you feel disconnected, it wasn't my intention and I certainly didn't mean to give off any "venom" for this woman or the organization. With that being said, I still think addressing her anti-choice history is important. But I'll definitely keep your thoughts in mind for future posts.
We cannot ignore a religious institution's policies and actions against women's rights. Neither should those belonging to the religious institution.
There was nothing anti-Catholic about this post. And, to be fair, religious institutions do not get "special exemption" from criticism just because they are "religious" in nature: if they are against a progressive movement and actively work to destroy or retard it, they are fair game.
Religion tends to be patriarchal in dogma and theology, pretty much without exception. They will be criticized for it. They are not allowed to have patriarchal opinions while simultaneously disallowing the rest of us to express anger at it.
Exactly. I was just about to ask cng87 what exactly was anti-Catholic about this post. I see nothing.
And as a Catholic myself, I would think it would jump out at me immediately.
As a Catholic who frequents this site, I just wanted to give you my perspective on this. While Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good does take many progressive stances, particularly on poverty and war, their retrograde stances on abortion access and contraception are directly in line with Catholic doctrine yet firmly opposed to what the majority of Catholics in the US believe and practice. This is the main reason I removed myself from their mailing list. If this organization was truly interested in common ground and the common good, they would support real initiatives to reduce the need for abortion, such as comprehensive sex ed and access to contraceptives, rather than simply reducing access. As a progressive Catholic, I'm sick and tired of groups that identify themselves as Catholics and progressive cowtowing to the Vatican and selling out women's health and freedom on this.
I also think, to be fair to Vanessa, it should be noted that much of her reporting in this post came from a Catholic organization - Catholics for Choice, and that Kathleen Sebelius herself is a pro-choice Catholic.
When religion and politics mix, we need to be vigilant and critical, particularly when the rights and freedoms we value as a pluralistic society are on the line. I'll gladly go head-to-head against my co-religionists if they're trying to take my rights away.
Thanks for the replies. I suppose I was a bit hasty in my comment. I don't think that Vanessa is at fault for posting this. The organization does need to be criticized for being anti-choice.
As a someone who takes shit pretty much everyday from Catholics who don't understand why I'm a feminist and from feminists who don't understand why I'm Catholic, I get defensive. I appreciate a lot of what CACG does, particularly when it comes to their treatment of war and poverty. I hate their stance on choice, but I don't want them lumped in with all of the other crazy right-wing "Right to Life" organizations that people seem to think characterize Catholicism.
I'm a Protestant and a feminist, and I deal with the same sort of thing - how can I *really* be both? I view it as an extra challenge to exemplify Christian teachings on compassion and social justice in order to show that, say, the ass-hat who assasinated Dr. Tiller does not represent my faith. It may feel like a burden a lot of the time, but really it's an opportunity to explain how your faith and your feminism go hand in hand.
Religion is a personal thing and should NOT be used for political motives. I am not interested in what Catholics have to say, sorry (and this coming from a non-practicing, secular Muslim feminist).
Not all criticism of an organization that uses the catholic name is anti-catholic. This post responded to the appointment of one member of a certain group. Not to mention Catholics for Choice, a truly, truly, progressive group was mentioned and quite favorably. CACG was not criticized for being a catholic organization, they were criticized for having an agenda to restrict access to abortion. Could you pleas point out what was so anti-religious?
I'm Catholic as well, and the post came to me as anti-"pro-life", not anti-Catholic. Catholicism is mentioned quite a bit, but it is made obvious that there is disagreement amongst Catholics about choice.
why the hell is there a faith-based government organization? WTF.
Is this some of that "common ground" he was talking about? He needs to see that there just ISN'T any.
Haha. It's like being pregnant: you either are or you aren't. There's no "gray area".
With reproductive rights, we either have them or we don't. If we don't have them, we don't have them. If we do have them, then we do have them. We can't "kind of " have them.
I understand the frustration, but I don't like the way CACG seems to be getting grouped with all those other "crazy anti-choice groups". Because they're not. And I know we all wish that everyone would agree with us on this, but the reality is that not everyone does, and people with differing opinions shouldn't be excluded from holding government positions.
The CACG does work for a lot of other causes, they are not strictly or even primarily a group focused on the issue of abortion.
CACG's anti-contraception position puts them in the minority. Even mainstream pro-life people use contraception and are not opposed to talking about birth control.
CACG doesn't seem to represent any sort of mainstream view when it comes to issues of women's health. I'd rather not have people like that in important positions in the Department of Health.
yep, what Emma said.
What a great way to end what's been the shittiest week in recent memory.
As many as 51% of U.S. citizens have some anti-choice beliefs according to Zogby. While the percentage that goes to church once a week is just under 20% while 40% claim some form of regular attendance.
But hey as one of the 18% of Americans who have no belief in god and 44-50% (Gallup and Zogby disagree) who are completely pro-choice I feel confident is saying that the people who disagree with me should have no representation.
Why on earth anyone ever spoke of Obama as a "feminist" is beyond me. This surprises me not in the least.
Ms. Kelley is not a radical anti-choice activist, as she is portrayed by Catholics for Choice, and agreed on by this post. She has listened to the valid concerns of both conservatives and progressives, and has attempted to find common ground. Like President Obama, she has aimed to achieve pro-life ends without attacking pro-choice means. Catholics for Choice wants to portray CACG as radically anti-feminist. But if one looks at the CACG website (catholicsinalliance.org) there is really no good evidence to support that claim. CACG does not harp on abortion regulation laws. It does not harp on banning contraception. Rather, it aims to avoid the traps of the culture warriors by moving past the things on which there can be no agreement in order to find common ground. Radical pro-life activists have ignored the concerns of all women, particularly the voiceless. Radical pro-choice activists have ignored the concerns of those who believe life starts at conception.
I believe that the fact that Ms. Kelley's appointment has drawn criticism from the left (Catholics for Choice) and from the right (Catholic News Agency, LifeNews, etc.) is a testament to the increasing irrelevance of the culture warriors and a testament of hope in common ground solutions.
Perhaps...the extent of my familiarity with CACG was that it had been castigated by Catholic conservatives as a "far-left" organization wanting to soft-pedal the Church's teaching, presumably because of their refusal to take a firm stance on outlawing abortion. What is clear is that they support the strengthening of social services such as pre-natal care and children's health insurance that are said to reduce the demand for abortion, which is entirely consistent with Obama's stated position. How effective a strategy this will be in theory or practice has yet to be seen.
What exactly are faith based offices ?