President Obama Appoints Antiabortion Pro-Obama Catholic to Senior Health Position – Causing Controversy
EmailPresident Obama has announced that Alexia Kelley, founder of the antiabortion group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, will serve as the director of the Health and Human Services Department's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, arousing the ire of some abortion rights activists.
“Catholics in Alliance believes in the sanctity of all human life—from conception until natural death,” says the group’s website. “Our Catholic faith and the Catholic social tradition affirm that all life is sacred, and that every person has essential worth and dignity. Therefore, we support a consistent culture of life that includes protections for unborn children…”
Kelley’s appointment has revealed the chasm between what US News & World Report’s Dan Gilgoff calls “religious progressives” versus the “religious left.” (Gilgoff has a piece on this HERE.)
This won’t be a perfect description, but in the abortion debate (and there are lots of other relevant debates including war, the death penalty, and gay and lesbian rights) generally it can be described that progressives, in this construct, are those who seek the middle ground and try to work for abortion reduction. Kelley would be in this group. She opposes abortion, but she has supported politicians who support abortion rights and has supported lifting the ban on federally funding embryonic stem cell research.
The religious left is more traditionally liberal and more likely to see this “middle ground” approach as full of untenable compromises. Abortion reduction, in the view of some, is a patronizing term that implies that there’s something wrong with legal abortion, and that it’s anyone’s business but the woman in question. (Some say abortion reduction has its roots in the anti-abortion movement’s strategies of the 1990s.)
Gilgoff writes that Kelley “is certainly not a hard-core conservative.” Gilgoff says Catholics in Alliance is generally “more focused on social justice issues like fighting poverty and has promoted ways to reduce abortion that avoid curtailing abortion rights.”
Kelley advised the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and her group came under attack from the conservative Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights.
But at Salon, Frances Kissling writes that abortion rights activists want to know “why the post, which includes oversight of the department's faith-based grant-making in family planning, HIV and AIDS and in small-scale research into the effect of religion and spirituality on early sexual behavior, has gone to someone who both believes abortion should be illegal and opposes contraception. That's right — Kelley's group of self-described progressive Catholics takes a position held by only a small minority, that the Catholic church is right to prohibit birth control.”
Kissling sees the appointment as “political payback” since Kelley “provided abortion cover for the president and for candidates like Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius,” the Secretary of HHS.
Jon O’Brien, the president of an abortion-rights organization, Catholics for Choice, lambasted the appointment, saying “Alexia Kelley is on record with her support for restrictions on access to abortion, despite her organization's efforts to avoid the question of legalization at every turn.”
But Chris Korzen, the executive director of the progressive group Catholics United, said the group is “profoundly disappointed by Catholics for Choice's simplistic, incendiary, and unhelpful reaction to President Obama's appointment of Alexia Kelley to this important post. …O'Brien's statement, as well as his report attacking Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United for our own efforts to find common ground, is a roadblock to progress. It is intended as cover for Catholics for Choice's increasing irrelevance, and its inability to offer any real solutions to the challenges of our day. Despite annual expenditures of more than $3.5 million, the organization accomplishes little more than creating a hostile and divisive political climate—as evidenced by today's statement.”
Steven Waldman of Beliefnet says, "My view: if pro-choicers object to the appointment of Alexia Kelley then there's literally no kind of pro-lifer who will be acceptable. "
HHS has issued this typically soporific statement: “Alexia Kelley has worked in the faith and nonprofit community for over 15 years. Her experience and her commitment to helping families struggling to get by in this economy will be incredibly valuable as she leads the Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnership Center at HHS.”
-jpt
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
This appointment, and the theory that Sotomayer is anti-abortion, may be a telling connection.
I hereby admit that in this appointment, I have some respect for Obama.
Also not sure how threatening an anti-abortion appointment in this position is to the pro-abortion crowd. I guess Obama can’t appoint anyone who is anti-abortion to fit their point of view of him.
Posted by: KR | June 8, 2009, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
The whole “Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” needs to be done away with. I can’t even believe that it hasn’t been declared unconstitutional yet.
The fact that our government is involved in this sort of outfit is a perfect example of everything that’s wrong with this country today.
Posted by: paul | June 8, 2009, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
I am against using taxpayer dollars for anything “faith based” and I definitely don’t like the idea of a Catholic in this position. I think Obama has clearly forgotten his base.
Posted by: Cassandra Washington | June 8, 2009, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
The constitution has many references to faith and god such that our government should take moral stances based on faith, however the government shouldnt go as far as saying we follow this religion as opposed to another. The right to life is a faith based moral that the government is obliged to make a decision on. Right now most people believe that abortion should be used ONLY in certain circumstances (opinions may vary) but we must remember that in order for humanity to survive, we must follow a view that promotes life, not death.
Posted by: laminblake | June 8, 2009, 7:54 pm 7:54 pm
Obama has not had a good day today. he has made the pro-choice people mad. He made the gays mad. People are waking up and realizing that Obama is a fraud.
Posted by: CW | June 8, 2009, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
“but we must remember that in order for humanity to survive, we must follow a view that promotes life, not death.”
Tell that to Dr. Tiller’s family.
Posted by: nancy | June 8, 2009, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
Isn’t it odd the ABC and the media in general use the term “controversial” on individuals who are only pro-life? A person could believe in late term abortions right up until 9 months but to them, that’s not controversial. Am I the only one who’s noticing just how severe the media bias has gotten?
Posted by: SAS | June 8, 2009, 8:04 pm 8:04 pm
how likely is it that he could have found a pro-choice candidate with the credentials to lead the HHS Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives? With only a few exceptions, most faith-based organizations are opposed to abortion.
Posted by: simply me | June 8, 2009, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm
Obama, the ultimate political opportunist. Of course, this is payback to someone who helped him during his campaign. Look at his policies so far, handing the automotive industry to the UAW, handing stimulus money to ACORN and so on, all at the expense of the taxpayer. Next will be socialized medicine to benefit the unemployed and under educated that voted for him again at the expense of everyone else.
Posted by: Allat | June 8, 2009, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
Those of you who are opposed to using taxpayer money for faith-based organizations really have little idea how much work church groups do in their communities.
These groups generally work to solve community problems that others simply ignore — they run soup kitchens, food pantries, health clinics, drug rehabs and a variety of other services using mostly volunteers and donations.
They provide an essential service to their communities — why should they be barred from applying for grants and other federal funding? They don’t force their religion on anyone – they simply help where help is needed. I can’t believe anyone would suggest that only non faith-based entities should be entitled to those funds.
Posted by: From the trenches | June 8, 2009, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
From the trenches……..Some of these so called churches do push their religion on others.
The guy who killed Dr. Tiller was from a church. There are churches that use deadly snakes for worship. Others use sex.
What defines a church should be reviewed.
Posted by: CW | June 8, 2009, 9:03 pm 9:03 pm
Is this a situation of truly believing in this person or just another attempt to sway the public through just another PR performance? I as a member of Joe public have no idea.
Posted by: William | June 8, 2009, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm
Great comment from “FROM THE TRENCHES”, and totally agree. Happen to be in a community where churches provide summer lunches for kids who would otherwise not be fed; a ministry that builds homes, or renovates them for those who have been affected by storms or other traumatic experiences; involved with assisting individuals to prepare for future careers, and prepare for new jobs in the current market; directly involved caring for abused children — of all ages — and these are just a few examples. Politicians do not want to get involved in many of these issues, because the are ‘TOO STICKY’. Churches pick up the slack — with a smile on their face!
Posted by: PappyHappy | June 8, 2009, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm
“The guy who killed Dr. Tiller was from a church.” AND Dr. Tiller was from a church even though he performed late term abortions, go figure.
Pew Research reports the proportion of Americans saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August.
I’d say Ms. Kelley is not a controversial pick at all.
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | June 8, 2009, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
I guess I can’t believe our government spends our money on things like the Health and Human Services Department’s Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Posted by: MayBee | June 8, 2009, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
Allat:”handing stimulus money to ACORN and so on”
Could you provide a citation for that accusation? The full text of the bill is available online – what section, specifically, handed stimulus money to ACORN?
Posted by: jhw539 | June 8, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
Faith based initiatives have been working forever in Saudi — it’s how you keep people toeing the line to the dominant religion. Most developed countries provide these services through established government channels…it’s only when you want to push religion on people that you rely on churches to provide this mush assistance.
Posted by: KL | June 8, 2009, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Laminblake,
You write:
“The constitution has many references to faith and god such that our government should take moral stances based on faith…”
Which can only mean you haven’t actually *read* the constitution. While you’re researching, try reading the Treaty for Tripoli.
Posted by: KL | June 8, 2009, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
Excellent comment, FromTheTrenches.
Another thing to remember is that churches are often among the first ones to help after natural disasters – far faster than FEMA and other government agencies.
If you want to knock them, don’t use their services next time you need help. Let the government take care of you.
Posted by: JustMe | June 8, 2009, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama (Indianapolis, IN)
Indianapolis, IN | October 23, 2008:
We have always been at our best when we’ve had leadership that called us to look past our differences and come together as one nation, as one people; leadership that rallied this entire country to a common purpose – to a higher purpose. And I am running for President of the United States of America because that is the country we need to be right now………………………..The President is doing what he always said he would do, and that is bringing people with differences, with a common purpose, to a higher purpose. like I have said before, this President is ahead of his times, his ideas or progessive, why? because he’s a visionary, and history will prove him to be right.
Posted by: we'r1 | June 8, 2009, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
Is it just me or is Obama naming women to just about every post? Why is that?
Posted by: Ryan | June 8, 2009, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm
We are moving towards a more progressive country, away from all the hate of the Bush years. More equality and freedom by returning the Crysler Company to the Union. Soon we will be returning all of the nations wealth to its rightfull owners – the workers! Afterwards we are going to arrest Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and Beck and lock them up in Gitmo.
Posted by: Social Justice | June 8, 2009, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
Do you feel deceived yet?
Posted by: 3rd party | June 8, 2009, 11:14 pm 11:14 pm
The attacks on Alexia Kelley by groups like Catholics for Choice, which is a contradiction in terms, are the residue of the culture wars of the past. President Obama has decided to leave behind those tired dualisms and try to reach common ground–yes, common ground that will yield results of which both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates can be proud.
One element of that plan is to install Alexia Kelley, a dedicated advocate for the poor and for health care reforms, in the DHHS’ Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Initiatives. Contrary to what some special interest groups and misinformation campaigns have said, this office will have no control over access to abortion and, as far as we know, will not have jurisdiction over any programs that already provide the poor with access to an abortion. Rather, the new post will be entirely dedicated to reducing abortions through supporting pregnant mothers and fathers. Through her experience in working with the US Conference on Catholic Bishops and Catholics in Alliance, Alexia Kelley has garnered years of experience in programming and efforts related to outreach to families by faith communities. She will therefore come to the office with the skills necessary to make an impact. President Obama’s selection of her is evidence enough that this is the case.
It’s time to leave behind the brinksmanship of the past and forge a new approach that both camps can be proud of. Nothing in this Daily Kos post that is factually accurate indicates that Alexia Kelley is not a good fit for that job. I commend President Obama’s choice and look forward to progress down the road.
Posted by: CT | June 8, 2009, 11:28 pm 11:28 pm
Face it you were duped.
Posted by: Ken | June 8, 2009, 11:33 pm 11:33 pm
Ryan:”Is it just me or is Obama naming women to just about every post? ”
It’s just you. Bush had as many women in his cabinet, and if you recall he also tried to appoint a woman to the supreme court. Obama has taken flak for having about 75% of his cabinet appointees being men.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 8, 2009, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
These groups generally work to solve community problems that others simply ignore — they run soup kitchens, food pantries, health clinics, drug rehabs and a variety of other services using mostly volunteers and donations.
They provide an essential service to their communities — From the trenches
so churches function like, what might be described as ‘community organizers’ without the religion or the politics……. wow…..
I thought only ‘thugs and gangsters from Chicago, that eventually become president did that stuff
Posted by: ^-||-^ | June 9, 2009, 12:39 am 12:39 am
“Abortion reduction, in the view of some, is a patronizing term that implies that there’s something wrong with legal abortion, and that it’s anyone’s business but the woman in question. (Some say abortion reduction has its roots in the anti-abortion movement’s strategies of the 1990s.)” – Yeah that or Bill Clinton’s abortion policy to make it safe, legal, and RARE! How patronizing of Bill. Oh, and I was not aware that he was a part of the anti-abortion movement of the 1990s. Puuuleeaze, people stop stoking the media fueled frenzy of false choices. Obama even if he is wrong on certain things is still so wise on everything else that it literally takes my breath away sometimes, and I am a male pro-life feminist for what it is worth.
Posted by: Nicolas Hernandez | June 9, 2009, 12:44 am 12:44 am
How confused the liberals must be. The sheep want to follow their shepard Obama but he’s venturing off the normal liberal path. All they can do is talk about Bush & Rush, while the true ruin of the country leads his sheep to slaughter.
Posted by: Charlie C | June 9, 2009, 1:07 am 1:07 am
Social justice,
The names you cite are entertainers. The ones doing harm to our country are Pelosi, Frank, Reid and Obama. They wield the power. The others just voice opinions you can switch off. Can’t switch off the liberal shepards leading their sheep.
Posted by: Charlie C | June 9, 2009, 1:11 am 1:11 am
‘The sheep want to follow their shepard Obama but he’s venturing off the normal liberal path.’
Posted by: Charlie C
you may find it difficult to accept, but most folks who voted for Obama understand he will make changes, adapt and take longer to get around to certain issues…… and we will complain about it..
but we know that America is a much better place, and will be a better place with Obama as president.
America, whether you believe it or not is changing, the days of Republican fear mongering are coming to an end.
‘The amalgam of evangelical Christians, hardcore gun-rights fanatics, anti-tax, anti-immigrant and anti-choice voters who make up the base of the Republican Party amount to less than 30 percent of the overall electorate. ‘
Posted by: ^-||-^ | June 9, 2009, 1:19 am 1:19 am
Republican fear mongering? If we’d headed the warnings in 2001, instead of discounting them as Barney Frank, et al did, we wouldn’t be in the terrible shape we’re in today. Continue to blindly follow your leader.
Posted by: Charlie C | June 9, 2009, 1:38 am 1:38 am
It is a psychological weakness of the human mind and a flaw in the character of the faithful. It makes life easier for those who can not handle the realities of our world. To believe in a religion, you must first lose faith in yourself. To believe in yourself never requires it.
Posted by: tim gallien | June 9, 2009, 3:00 am 3:00 am
Is is hard to understand that abortion is killing, and that killing is just not right? In God we trust, do you say. How do you trust in Him when you twist His laws? Contradiction.
Posted by: ist his laws? Contradiction... | June 9, 2009, 3:59 am 3:59 am
I wonder, if, in the past.. this level of scrutiny was given to an appointment at this level. How important is it?
This kind of supports my theory that the ObamaNation has a polarizing effect. I think they try to unite, not divide, but their left leaning supporters are being very impractical about small issues. Bill Clinton was given a lot of leeway while governing as a centrist, Obama is being overly scrutinized from both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 9, 2009, 8:28 am 8:28 am
“It makes life easier for those who can not handle the realities of our world. To believe in a religion, you must first lose faith in yourself. To believe in yourself never requires it.”
Actually I would, personally, restate that: “To believe in President Obama’s ‘Government is the answer,’ you must first lose faith in yourself.”
Posted by: James Danley | June 9, 2009, 8:56 am 8:56 am
Whatever…
Posted by: Bud | June 9, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am
Jake,
Can you ask the WH, is it now US policy to exchange Iranian insurgents captured in Iraq for hostages?
Are we to allow Iranian proxies to grab hostages in Iraq and hold them for prisoner trades?
Posted by: J House | June 9, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am
The simple equation liberals have created but never semm to understand!
“Torture” > Abortion
Posted by: Mike_C | June 9, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am
If the anti-abortion folks put as much energy into the adoption of unwanted babies as they put into attempting to deny other citizens’ the right to choose, the abortion issue would be solved.
Posted by: Sammy | June 9, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
Why hasn’t the Faith-based office been shut down? I don’t want my tax dollars going to ANY of these religionists that pervert our system of government with fairytale stories.
No money for religious indoctrination!
Posted by: Greg | June 9, 2009, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
So Sammy,
A baby in the final month has ZERO rights in your world? Does the detainee at GITMO have more rights than the near birth baby as the doctor prepares to kill it?
Personally, I am all for putting side by side videos up of the water boarding with late term abortions and allowing people to see both and decide what is morally incorrect!
Posted by: Mike_C | June 9, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
Uhhh…. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is not an “anti-abortion group.” It’s a group of Catholics. Some are anti-abortion, some are even pro-choice.
A little bit o’ googlin’ would help here.
Posted by: blip | June 9, 2009, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
What’s the big deal? Obama has appointed so many “Catholics” who are pro-choice, so what if he appoints one who is pro-life! The scales aren’t even close to being equal. Jon O’Brien, of Catholics for Choice and Frances Kissling of Salon need to quit whining.
Posted by: Rican | June 9, 2009, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
The proverbial fox guarding the hen house.
Posted by: Etbrand9 | June 9, 2009, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
I think its time to throw the less than 10% of Americans who oppose contraception under the bus. Their views are so fringe they have no relevance to modern society. There are more Dungeons and Dragons players than people who oppose contraception.
Posted by: Flash Override | June 9, 2009, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
Even the lunatic fringe deserves some representation. There are about three times as many people who favor socialism over capitalism in America than there are people who oppose contraception. Obama so far hasn’t found a single one to appoint, however.
Posted by: Flash Override | June 9, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
I have read so little about this appointment, if you news/google it only 32 articles come up. If Obama went shirtless you would have thousands of articles.
What would you Obama defenders have said if Bush had appointed Ms. Kelly? I think I know.
Glad I voted Nader.
Posted by: Tina | June 10, 2009, 12:23 am 12:23 am
Please, people. Groups like Catholics for Choice and their counterparts on the extreme right can only thrive by attacking others. Most people of faith are more than tired of the culture wars, which only serve to create pain and division that hinder our ability to work together for the common good. I applaud people like Alexia Kelley and President Obama as they attempt to move us beyond the wars and bridge the gaps. Now, THAT is progress!
Posted by: Stephanie | June 10, 2009, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
That’s what I call going backwards.
Posted by: Tina | June 10, 2009, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm