In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

So this is what “common ground” looks like?

I know a lot of pro-choice advocates dislike Obama’s “common ground” rhetoric, but I’ve actually thought it was quite strategically smart. After all, the “common ground” position is abortion reduction through contraception, poverty alleviation, and increased gender equality — the pro-choice position, in a nutshell. It is irritating to see that position re-packaged and sold as new, but if it works, I’m fine with it. It also puts anti-choicers on the defensive, and it makes them explain why they’re opposed to all the things that have been proven to decrease the abortion rate. The anti-choice position is centered solely and wholely on making abortion illegal; they have no other tenable plan for making abortion less common. So I like the “common ground” argument, because it puts them in a position of refusing all common-sense solutions.

But if this is what “common ground” looks like, count me out.

President Obama has appointed Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), to head the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. Kelley is a leading proponent of “common ground” abortion reduction — only CACG’s common ground is at odds with that of Obama. While the administration favors reducing the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies, Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to abortion. That is an extremely disturbing development, especially coming this week in the wake of George Tiller’s assassination.

Kelley and CACG have made clear they are committed to Catholic doctrine on abortion and birth control. CACG has supported the Pregnant Women’s Support Act, aimed at stigmatizing abortion and making it less accessible. In discussing legislation on reducing the need for abortion, Kelley has written that various pieces of legislation concerned with women’s health “are not all perfect; some include contraception — which the Church opposes.” Never mind that more than 90 percent of American Catholics use it anyway.

As Catholics for Choice points out in its press release criticizing the pick, “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.”

In a 2008 press teleconference co-sponsored by CACG and Sojourners, Kelley stated that she supported state-imposed restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods and informed consent. In her 2008 book, A Nation for All, co-written with Chris Korzen, Kelley wrote, “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.”

I’ll echo Sarah’s question: Why do we need religious groups involved in health care policy?

Catholics for Choice has even more background. I’m glad that Ms. Kelley supports anti-poverty measures, but without support for basics like contraception, it doesn’t seem like there’s much common ground to be had.


26 thoughts on So this is what “common ground” looks like?

  1. In a 2008 press teleconference co-sponsored by CACG and Sojourners, Kelley stated that she supported state-imposed restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods and informed consent.

    Perhaps this is picking nits, but informed consent isn’t a “state-imposed restriction,” it’s a principle that has been developed in medicine and research to increase the autonomy of patients/research subjects. Doctors and researchers have to tell patients and subjects what they plan on doing and get the patient’s permission. Today, doctors have an excellent incentive to be very good about informed consent: civil suits.

    What Kelley supports isn’t “informed consent” but a state mandated guilt trip that is directly aimed at reducing a patient’s bodily autonomy through false and emotionally loaded information. In other words, its the exact opposite of what it claims to be. Double plus ungood.

  2. I wonder if one of the pitfalls of nationalized health care could be reduced access to birth control and abortion, precisely because of the involvement of these ideological/religious forces…

  3. Malathion, that’s definitely a possibility. I’m a federal govt employee and my health insurance specifically excludes abortions. But I was surprised to learn on Rachel Maddow’s show that many states have laws forbidding PRIVATE insurance companies from covering abortions. WTF, conservatives? Thought you believed in the free market?

    On the topic of Alexia Kelley, is there a petition going around opposing Obama’s pick? I wonder if NARAL or Planned Parenthood or any of those big groups have a statement on this? I haven’t gotten anything from them yet.

  4. Damn, I had not heard of that particular little tweak of states restricting private insurance coverage of abortion. I did a little research and discovered that those states (ID, KY, MO, ND and RI) do not prohibit private insurance from covering abortion, but rather require an additional rider and premium. Which probably means that nobody in those states gets covered – I mean, what employer is going to negotiation an Abortion Rider to your group health plan? Anyway, RI’s law was invalidated by the federal courts, but MO’s was upheld. Gag. More info from the Guttmacher Institute: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RICA.pdf

  5. Thanks for the details and the correction, malathion. Oklahoma was the other state Maddow mentioned as restricting (though perhaps not outright forbidding) private insurers from covering abortions.

  6. I wonder if one of the pitfalls of nationalized health care could be reduced access to birth control and abortion, precisely because of the involvement of these ideological/religious forces…

    In my opinion, this is the primary pitfall of nationalized health care — even beyond the cost. If health care is nationalized, get ready for the same ridiculous debates we have about intelligent design, sex ed, etc. to permeate our health care system.

  7. JessSnark – I don’t think it was even a correction! The restrictions on private insurers are tantamount to a prohibition. I can’t believe they have not been more broadly challenged.

  8. I work for the federal gov’t. A fellow employee found out that she had to terminate her pregnancy due to an ill-placed blood clot that could cause hemorrhaging. (BTW, she found out because a doctor at her Catholic hospital went against policy and told her about the clot. The other doctors didn’t even tell her about it or the potential side effects because they didn’t want her to even think about getting an abortion. We should have “informed consent” for staying pregnant!) Anyway, she ended up hemorrhaging, and when she got to the hospital the doctors had to terminate the pregnancy to save her life. However, the federal health insurance won’t cover ANY part of the visit because it involved an abortion. They cover those abortions “necessary for the life of the mother”, but they never tell you that if you’re in the emergency room and only one doctor says that you’re gonna die, that’s not enough for the abortion to be deemed “necessary” to save your life. You have to spend the next few months or years trying to prove it to them.

    Basically, don’t be a sick pregnant woman in this country, even if you have insurance.

  9. Ugh. If this is his idea of “common ground” then I think we should start worrying about Sotomayor.

  10. I’ll echo Sarah’s question: Why do we need religious groups involved in health care policy?

    Because if they can’t get control in the schools and the clinics, they’ll get it on the street.

  11. The whole thing sort of sounded funny, so I went around and googled various places.

    I think, first and foremost, Obama picked her because he knew her–she worked at CAP at some point. Secondly, from what I make of it, he *is* following a policy of allowing anti-abortion people access to his administration. Alexia Kelly is decidedly anti-abortion. On the other hand, it doesn’t really sound like she would have an overall influence on whether women get abortions at all. The current schema *seems* to be on reducing the *need* for abortion, as in Kelly does seem to be a fairly leftist Catholic. She would have made considerably more sense as an appointment elsewhere in Obama’s administration. She doesn’t seem to be a unworthy canidate at all, just not for anything to do with abortion. She is certainly not Amy Goodman.

    She also has been fighting the good fight against right-wing Catholics and she does hang with other religious people that I’d find…tolerable. Leftist social justice type catholics can be really worthwhile folks. It’s just a waste to appoint her there, no matter how much it’s a sop, because most anti-abortion folks hate her anyways even though I’ve not found any kind of precise language on exactly how she feels about abortion.

  12. Holy crap, I just read the text of the Pregnant Women Support Act which Ms. Kelley thinks is so great and progressive according to the AJC article shah8 linked. It is nothing more than the federalization of the horrible state regulations like so-called “informed consent” about the “long term effects of abortion.” It gives grants to those deceptive “crisis pregnancy centers” to buy more ultrasound machines. And, worst of all, it creates a new civil cause of action against doctors who violate the fake “informed consent” provisions, allowing for actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. The Act contains some good language on insurance, but over all it would be a GIANT step back for abortion rights. But what makes me *really* mad is how cynical it is. It it being touted by Ms. Kelley and her ilk as common ground, but in fact it is no such thing. It is a federalization of some of the anti-abortion movement’s most cherished state-law victories and a criminalization of abortion doctors – all the while containing NOTHING about birth control or sex ed. And I don’t even think the bill provides much new financial support for women anyways – it just codifies the SCHIP coverage for pregnant women that already exists on the regulatory level. Nice “common ground,” guys.

  13. “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.”

    Doesn’t she then have a moral obligation to suck it up and start pushing contraception? Unwanted pregnancy is far and away the most significant contributing factor to abortion, to say nothing of the difference contraception makes in women’s lives compared with forced childbirth, and that she can say abortion kills and then attack the biggest and best way to prevent it, makes her the moral equivalent of someone standing on the shore and watching a child drown because if she gets into the water it’ll ruin her hairstyle and makeup.

  14. Obama seems to be falling into the same trap as a lot of liberals who aren’t David Patterson: they want everyone to like them. That they’ll never, ever win over the far right is tremendously upsetting; few Democrats are willing to say “well, the farthest-right 20% of the electorate isn’t going to support me anyway, so there’s no point in making conciliatory gestures that will upset my base.”

    Alternatively, of course, Obama is simply anti-choice. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, though.

  15. Doesn’t she then have a moral obligation to suck it up and start pushing contraception?

    Of course not. Remember, to these people there is no real difference between contraception and abortion. They are morally equivalent. They might have the good sense not to say that in public, but for the forced-birth crowd abortion is simply the more serviceable argument for the current political climate.

  16. Remember, to these people there is no real difference between contraception and abortion. They are morally equivalent. They might have the good sense not to say that in public, but for the forced-birth crowd abortion is simply the more serviceable argument for the current political climate.

    They’re saying it in public:

    “Right-Wing Protesters: Birth Control Will Kill You”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/right-wing-protestors-bir_n_212030.html
    BTW I love your blog!

  17. I appreciate what you are saying, and think that the issue of birth control in working all this out is far from simple. But I can’t help but note the irony of beginning a post by saying “I was all for common ground rhetoric” and then concluding by saying “but geez, not if it means I have to work with people who I disagree with.”

    That’s common ground.

    The alternative to Hershele Ostroper’s theory that Obama either wants everyone to like him or that he actually is anti-choice is that he actually, sincerely wants to find common ground among people who see their views as irreducibly opposed. He might even actually think that’s how democracy works.

  18. The ostensible “common ground” is reducing the number of abortions, either as a direct goal or an indirect result. Nobody wants women to be forced into reproductive decisions they wouldn’t make if their options weren’t so uniformly shitty. I don’t want a woman to have to get an abortion because she can’t afford the family she wants. I don’t want a woman to have to get an abortion because her access to birth control is compromised, or her decision to take it challenged. We almost certainly can use social policy to reduce the number of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

    If we agree on that goal, then we can find some compromises in programs for alleviating poverty, support for new mothers, social and academic support for pregnant teenagers, pre-and perinatal care, and–arguably most importantly–family planning.

    However, if their goal is punishing female sexual behavior, and our goal is respecting female reproductive decisions, then…we don’t have common ground on this issue. We don’t even have amenable effective outcomes. If they want to make birth control less accessible, their policies are directly in opposition to their stated goals, our actual goals, and the beliefs held by a strong majority of Americans. The ground they’ve staked out isn’t common.

  19. PNTS, I spin for a living. If I were working for a politician who wanted everyone to like him, I think “common ground” is one of the phrases I’d use. So what I’m reading you as saying is “it’s not that he want’s to be liked or that he hates women, it’s that he wants to be liked.”

  20. PNTS says
    I can’t help but note the irony of beginning a post by saying “I was all for common ground rhetoric” and then concluding by saying “but geez, not if it means I have to work with people who I disagree with.”

    Jill’s not complaining about having to work with people she disagrees with. She’s pointing out that there isn’t really common ground with groups that don’t even believe in contraception. There is common ground to be had with some people who call themselves pro-life, and Jill describes what that common ground is:
    abortion reduction through contraception, poverty alleviation, and increased gender equality

  21. The alternative to Hershele Ostroper’s theory that Obama either wants everyone to like him or that he actually is anti-choice is that he actually, sincerely wants to find common ground among people who see their views as irreducibly opposed. He might even actually think that’s how democracy works.

    I’m reminded of something Warren Ellis had to say about that brand of democracy. I’m pretty sure it’d be inappropriate for this blog, but the gist of it is simple: imagine you’re locked in a room with 99 people who want to do you harm and the 100 of you have to vote on how you’re spending your evening.

    Thats the problem with finding common ground, thats the problem with democracy. There are some lines which cannot be crossed, some rights which simply cannot be infringed upon, abridged, or compromised over. Any common ground in a situation like this necessarily means that the side who is trying to merely maintain their rights is going to be oppressed. The only power they have is to try to hold back how badly they’re going to be oppressed.

Comments are currently closed.