The New Pro-lifer
In our pain, anger and profound sadness over the murder of Dr. Tiller, pro-choice people risk losing an opportunity to see a better day as a country and a movement. In the wake of our loss, it is tempting to continue to categorize in one fixed way all who oppose abortion. To do so would be easy, but also foolish. We must admit and accept that not all who are opposed to abortion are the same. Especially since a new movement of pro-lifers has extended a hand in search of a better way.
Yesterday offered a unique opportunity to make this distinction. Alexia Kelley, co-founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Each of the eleven federal agencies has an Office for Faith-based and Community Partnerships that reports to the White House Office of Faith-based Initiatives. Kelley has been appointed as the liaison for HHS.
Moments after the announcement, John O'Brien, president of the pro-choice group Catholics for Choice, released a statement calling the Kelley appointment "a defeat for reason and logic." He continued, "The administration has talked a lot about reducing the need for abortion, and progressive groups like my own are totally with the administration in doing that," but "to have someone working in HHS who oversaw an organization that is anti-abortion... really beggars belief."
HHS has been called "ground zero in the culture wars" for good reason. Its policies strike at the heart of our most heated social disagreements, particularly those between pro-choice and pro-life groups. HHS oversees the FDA, which approves new contraceptive and abortion methods; the CDC, which promotes disease prevention initiatives on STDs including HIV; and Title X, the nation's contraception program for the poor, among others. One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration was the influence it granted the anti-abortion, anti-contraception movement on HHS policy and functions.
O'Brien's complaint is that the choice of Kelley, given her previous role overseeing a Catholic, anti-abortion organization, puts important social policies in danger of being hijacked by those same Bushian forces. But Kelley is not the Bush-styled pro-lifer of yore. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which Kelley founded, is a progressive organization that has also played a primary role in instigating a nationwide discussion of common ground on abortion. Her group has championed policies aimed at preventing the need for abortion, policies that have been identified as those pro-choice people can support too. It would be a mistake to group Kelley among anti-abortion operatives who snub opportunities to improve the relationship between pro-choice and pro-life communities, and who refuse to do anything to reduce the need for abortion. Her group has worked for policies that can reduce the need for abortion, work that has offended many hard-line anti-choice groups and individuals. To date, she has dedicated her career to finding shared solutions and minimizing this debilitating national conflict.
In November of 2008, Kelley's group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, released its study, "Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors," which found that "Analysis of nationwide data suggests that the economic status of pregnant women factors prominently into their abortion decision. Public policies that provide assistance and support to low-income families are rarely framed as ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. However, the findings from this study suggest that a two standard deviation increase in economic assistance to low-income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate in the 1990s. Across the entire United States, this translates into roughly 200,000 fewer abortions. Further, higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 21% lower abortion rate; and lower poverty rates were correlated with 10% reduction in the abortion rate."
The report concluded, "Elected officials can utilize effective and appropriate socioeconomic public policies to reduce abortions. These include: promoting policies that increase male employment; lower the poverty rate; provide funding for child care for working women; and increase economic assistance to low-income families. Legislation aimed at these goals can effectively reduce abortion in America."
This is a revolutionary leap in pro-life thought, a dramatic break from the 36-year-long drumbeat by the right-wing anti-abortion movement; that segment has single-mindedly focused on restricting and illegalizing abortion. In fact, the Catholics in Alliance report admits, "Our analysis finds that state laws regulating abortion had little systematic impact on the abortion rate in the 1990s. The one exception may be Medicaid funding. Our analysis consistently finds that Medicaid funding for abortions increases the abortion rate -- a finding consistent with earlier research -- though this effect is never statistically significant. If Medicaid funding does in fact increase the abortion rate, this result is nonetheless consistent with the main the implications of our study suggesting that the abortion rate is sensitive to economic factors."
Kelley is a new style pro-lifer, one who believes a progressive agenda will produce pro-life results. In January 2009, she wrote in an op-ed published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Voters are looking for a new path forward. The question is, do we have the political and moral will to make it happen? People of faith have a particular responsibility to both collaborate with and challenge the new administration. It's long past time for all of us to move from rhetoric and division to results."
Make no mistake, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is a Catholic organization that accepts the Church's position on abortion and contraception. But under Kelley's leadership, its efforts were spent exploring an array of policies that succeed at reducing the need for abortion. The organization has taken a notably passive role towards the church's dictates. It has not worked to restrict abortion or make contraception less available, approaches most other anti-abortion and Catholic groups focus on exclusively.
But unlike some of the loudest voices in that movement, she believes the solution rests at the end of a new path that can be entered together. Even if some way along that path we revisit conflicting convictions. The White House has indicated that HHS will be the department that will enact many of the common ground policies that the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, working with the White House Council on Women and Girls, is currently helping to identify. And while Kelley's new focus is not exclusively on reducing the need for abortion -- the Office of Faith-based Initiatives is also focused on poverty reduction, health care reform, and encouraging responsible fatherhood -- Kelley will help shepherd, not set, the White House's common ground agenda on abortion through HHS. It's fitting that, as someone who helped spark the common ground effort, she will now help see it through to safety.
Pro-choice people need to improve the national dialogue on the abortion issue. We can lower the vitriol. We can expose the anti-abortion groups that oppose all the proven ways to reduce the need for abortion. We must isolate those that only stoke the coals of hatred in this conflict and, especially those who create the inflamed environment that inspired Dr. Tiller's murderer. The vast majority of self-described "pro-life" Americans abhor the violence, want to move past the conflict and have both sides work together to find common ground. The American pro-life public has longed for leaders like Kelley and, the truth is, so have we.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's past time to PULL THE PLUG on
the REPUBLICAN-CREATED
RIGHTWING EXTREMIST anti-abortionists
with NO MEDIA COVERAGE.
Pro Choice is about women's rights . In all the history of the world women are constantly being stripped of their rights - mostly in the name of God.
I understand people want to give the fetus rights - and that's fine to some extent. But once that child is born that child is forgotten.
We need to support Womens Rights and take care of the children that are already here and that overwhelm our Foster System.
In the wake of Dr. Tillers death I would like to offer the following in dealing with the domestic terrorism that has targeted women's legal and safe reproductive healthcare:
1. As others have suggested bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" to reduce hate speech in broadcasting, (t.v., radio, internet?, etc.) Lying and misleading the public has little to do with free speech.
2. Support the Federal Task Force that has be reinitiated after funding was cut by G.W. and the Republicans in early 2000. They should be coordinating with the F.B.I. and A.T.F. to root out domestic terrorist organizations supporting violence against health care providers.
3. Deportation needs to be implemented for anyone plotting against health care professionals.
4. Extreme tax oversight of these organizations to track any all funds used for attacking clinics, staff, etc. (Donations from churches with tax exempt status, etc.)
5. Freeze terrorist organization assets.
6. Remove tax exempt status for any religious organization promoting hate speech or conspiring against health care professionals. Free speech is one thing, threatening people is another, let's make the difference clear.
I think it's clear we need to address these terrorist incidents with severe and mandatory prison sentences for anyone threatening a healthcare provider. These crimes should be treated like a terrorist act and not as an isolated incident. In addition more clinics should be built (possibly a minimum of two per State) to address the terrorist activity that has attempted to limit healthcare by intimidation. We should provide security with the National Guard or Military if necessary.
You said: "bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" to reduce hate speech in broadcasting, (t.v., radio, internet?, etc.) Lying and misleading the public has little to do with free speech. "
Actually, it has a lot to do with free speech, because under the First Amendment neither YOU nor I nor anyone else is allowed to determine what is the ofiically-approved "truth" that the American public is allowed to speak or hear.
Also: "Remove tax exempt status for any religious organization promoting hate speech or conspiring against health care professionals. Free speech is one thing, threatening people is another, let's make the difference clear."
The difference can't be made clear, at least judging by the rhetoric here. It seems like too many are ready to assign the "hate speech" label and silence anyone who dares to dissent from pro-choice orthodoxy or expresses a harsh opinion on abortion. Fortunately, this country has a history of allowing dissent (mostly).
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
I don't see how we can lower the vitriol when the lives of doctors offering a legal medical service continue to be threatened.
Most comments here focus on the details of the argument without going to the heart of the matter: so-called "common ground" between the pro-choice and pro-life movements. I say, "What common ground?" Everyone in the pro-life movement denies a woman's right to make her own choices with regard to reproductive medical care. Anyone in the pro-choice movement who does not affirm that right is, by definition, pro-choice in name only. It is black and white. There is no common ground here.
The pro-life movement has taken every legal opportunity (and many that are flagrantly illegal) to marginalize, demoralize, terrorize and defeat those to whom they are diametrically opposed. They recognize the "either-or" nature of the conflict, and so should we. Pro-lifers should take this opportunity, which occurs so rarely on a national scale, to go on the offensive. To compromise here is to put ourselves in the position of the fox who drowned crossing the river because he did not realize it was in the nature of the scorpion riding on his back to sting him at mid-stream and by so doing kill them both.
I hope Kelly understands that not everyone is Catholic and the majority of us believe birth control is necessary, in a world of 6 billion people. I believe Kelley is absolutely right, that economics is one of the major factors in abortion. Sarah Palin's family is proof enough that abstinenece does not work for most teenagers.
After years under Reagan and the two Bushes, I'm sick of faith-based ANYTHING tied into our government at any level, so don't ask me to be grateful that a supposedly gentler and kinder pro-lifer now wishes to impose her beliefs on me in a gentler, kinder way. She's still no-choice.
Agree, and marvel that Obama couldn't find someone pro-choice for this position. Either he doesn't care enough about this issue or he hasn't gotten the message that we are sick to death of the anti-choice minority running the government.
Progressive my ass. Same old, same old. Until you want to start talking about sex education and contraception there isn't much to talk about. Obviously economic problems will always be an issue. It just floors me that in this day and age of S.T.D.'s and high pregnancy rates we have conservative Catholics and Fundamentalist Christians who are against any form of contraception. This is no longer an acceptable position. Either wake-up and start living in the 21st Century or be prepared for the rest of us to take legislative action in order to provide safe healthcare and reduce the number of pregnancies. If you aren't willing to start dealing with sex ed. and contraception you aren't serious, it's just that simple. This is an absurd position and one that belongs in the 19th Century. According to recent statistics 1.3 abortions are performed each year. What solution is the other side offering for reducing the number. (a.) Abstinence only ed. (b.) No contraception. (c.) Eliminate poverty. (d). Adoption. Any protection for the life of the mother? Nope. None of these fantasies are even acceptable for intelligent debate. I agree with "darcusgrey" religion in government is not the answer. Religious views are completely irrelevant when deciding what legislation to pass in a secular nation as envisioned by our founding fathers. The superstition nonsense needs to go with Bush/Cheney.
Even though some pro-lifers, like Kelley, are willing to compromise now, they still have the same agenda as before...which is no-choice. So I can't get behind her appointment or feel gratitude for her 'progressiveness.'
Thank you, Cristina Page, and commentators! I was worried that Dr. Tiller's murder would put an end to this exploration of common ground, and I'm thrilled that it hasn't, thanks to people such as you.
We need to drive a wedge between the irresponsible, ignorant "abstinence-only" people (who apparently don't mind abortion at all as long as it's not on their personal watch), and the rest of us, be we pro-choice and pro-life. There are plenty of quietly pro-life, pro-contraceptive people, including people who are otherwise progressives, who have been disgusted by the tactics of the "pro-life" movement, and who would love to join with pro-choice people in making abortion as close to obsolete as possible.
Let's work on getting _free_, confidential contraceptives available to anyone, under-age or not, who requests them. Let's also work on legislating help, including financial aid flexibility, for pregnant college students. (This suggestion is based on a real-life situation for a former student of mine.)
Thanks again, you all.
There is ZERO common ground without birth control.
It's actually pretty easy. Make sex education mandatory and make contraceptives freely available. I gaurantee abortions will drop significantly. Faster than if abortions were made illegal.
Making abortions illegal won't change the number of abortions -- the only effect will be to allow the fanatics to punish somebody: the doctor with prison and the woman with death.
I took sex ed as a part of "Health Class" more than 30 years ago.
And we are still having problems...
I was in high school in the 80's and our sex ed was comprehensive. For living in South Georgia I would say it was a pretty good program. It has over the years radically changed into less and less about sex education to exclusively abstainence only. So to say that comprehensive sex ed doesn't work because it hasn't worked all these years is not telling the whole story. We need to return sex ed to what it was when AIDS had just hit.
Oh, forgot to mention, I am glad someone in the pro-life camp has finally realized that how you treat women is far more important than the legality of abortions in the abortion rate. In most of the nations where abortion is illegal (see catholic nations like mexico), the rate is higher than in the US, in most of the nations where abortion is not a problem (see europe) the abortion rate is lower.
I am not saying that making abortion legal lowers the abortion rate, but the sort of folks who lead the pro-life movement do other things that raise the abortion rate.
The same thing, it seems, can be said about illegal drug use.
Unfortunately there are more than two side, I am glad that pro-lifers finally have representation at the table though.
The 4 sides of the abortion debate:
Pro-Choice, believes that abortion needs to be legal for any number of reasons (could be further broken down into folks who believe that it is a regrettable decision, or who would never do it themselves but want others to be able to, and folks who want to have it indiscriminately).
Pro-Life, believes that a fetus is a life, and should be protected. Wants to reduce the rate of abortion by any means (which means that once they know the facts they turn into democrats).
Anti-life (theoretical), wants to reduce the population or something, supports abortion so there will be more abortions. I have not met anyone like this.
Anti-Choice, believes that abortion allows "whores and harlots," to get away with sin without the "justifiable punishment," of social attacks because of unwed pregnancy. Also oppose contraception because it allows women to have sex without being punished. I have run into a lot of people like this in the "pro-life," camp, and they generally don't share their true feelings with real pro-life folks. These folks are the most hard-core "pro-choice," folks and hold most of the leadership positions.
If Pro-Choice and Pro-Life come to a reasonable agreement, the anti-choice folks would be the ones opposing that agreement.
You forget that quite a number of democrats left the party and became republican because of the abortion issue. Prior to 1973, the democratic party wasn't pro choice.
And I for one, was never a republican:)
I'd like to see some evidence to back up your statements.
Many people who oppose abortion claim that abortion was always illegal in this country prior to Roe v. Wade, which is pure ignorance.
That effect works both ways. There are Republicans who left their party because of the party position on abortion.
There is a consistent 10 to 15% of the public polled who state that they do not want ANY abortions to be legal including in cases where the mother is going to die without the procedure, as in ectopic pregnancy. These people clearly belong to the hard-core group, since no reasonable person would let a woman die because of a pregnancy complication which dooms the fetus, especially when that woman is probably perfectly 'respectable' as they see it - married and at the beginning of a wanted pregnancy that has gone disastrously wrong.
I have never seen a poll where 10-15% of the respondents would oppose abortion to save a life.
I have seen numbers like that taking the position that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (rape, incest) except when the life of the mother is at stake.
In other words, there are three sides to the abortion debate.
I keep hearing that there are extremists on both sides of the [abortion] argument, which seems to imply that the extremes gone to on either side are equal. We have clear, historic evidence concerning the activities of pro-life extremists against pro-choice practitioners and advocates, including harassment, threats, obstruction of legal access to abortion clinics, vandalism and destruction of private property, criminal assault, attempted murder and murder; all of which are federal crimes.
Now, to convince me that there are “extremists” on both sides of the argument, I’d need to see a list of similar pro-choice activities against pro-life advocates. So far, I’ve been unable to find one. Can anyone explain to me what it is that defines a pro-choice extremist?
Certainly, a pro-choice extremist is anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the pro-life advocates.
Sadly, you’re right, at least from the pro-life point of view.
Hilarious! How true!
I would define a pro-choice extremest as someone who sees abortion as a matter of convenience, e.g. the baby isn't the gender you wanted, you've been married for three years and didn't want a baby until at least five, it's your third pregnancy and you were only going to have two kids, etc.
I'm in a discussion in another part of the thread where a poster doesn't think abortion is justified when the baby has NO BRAIN. The equivilant to that would be to REQUIRE women to have abortions because you don't think they should be pregnant (as in China). However, there aren't any ProChoice people that I know of who actually advocate that.
What you are suggesting is pure myth. It is never a matter of convenience and if you are so worried about that why don't you support contraception? The reality is young women are raped or there is an insestual relationship and they do not report until it's too late, in some cases they don't even realize they are pregnant. Some are also afraid there parents will find out and put off seeing a healthcare provider. Most other cases involve something going wrong during pregnancy where the life or health of the mother is threatened in some way (in many cases involving married women who already have families). Why would a woman go through with the expense and the trouble of an abortion when she could simply be using safe contraception? That doesn't make any sense. At any rate none of this qualifies as an extremist position since this is a legal procedure. The crimes committed by the other side are just that, crimes. Murder, arson, harassment, etc. are crimes by definition.
"It would be a mistake to group Kelley among anti-abortion operatives who snub opportunities to improve the relationship between pro-choice and pro-life communities, and who refuse to do anything to reduce the need for abortion."
No, it's not a mistake. This woman has advocated ending access to abortion in the past.
Anti-abortion types do not want to work with pro choice folks. They don't. They want to make abortion illegal worldwide and send women to their graves again. Many years ago a coalition was attempted in Massachusetts and the pro-choice faction made all kinds of concessions. The group split because the anti-abortion people refused to give up their goal of ending abortion services through the law. They also have a tendency to call pro choice people "murderers," which gets annoying when your trying to work someone. Anyway. their threats, harrassment and calls for the overturning of Roe, never ceased regardless of what the other side did.
Appointing this woman is a slap in the face to women, especially insulting after the recent murder of Dr. Tiller.
Since I know that the mainstream pro lifers ..the old guard..don't like the concept, it seems to me that many mainstream pro choicers probably wouldn't either.
Which tells me that we might be on the right track.
Look, let's be serious here.
Roe isn't going away period.
But there are, in both camps, quite a few that believe that there are just too many abortions happening.
That's why we have some common ground here and it's not something we just "cooked up".
Americans don't really like the idea of abortion on demand without some restrictions.
They don't want Roe to go away either.
So what is the harm in doing everything we possibly can to help every woman get the information she needs for an educated decision?
What is the harm in making sure that young girls are provided with enough information so that they can realize that sex is not a toy and sex too early can be detrimental in that it can lead to disease, even death and of course pregnancy?
And if, by all these good efforts, we manage to save many from becoming pregnant before they are ready to start a family...what is the harm in it?
You're responding to my comment without reading what I wrote.
The aim of the anti-abortion movement is to eliminate safe, legal abortion. This "new face" of the anti-abortion movement is the same as the old face. They have been chipping away at Roe for three decades now and access to abortion in most of this country is severely limited already. In short, they are winning, even with Roe as established law. Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of abortion providers who continued to offer late term abortion services. They snuffed out his life-- now women whose lives are threatened by pregnancies gone horribly wrong will go -- where exactly?
And yes, in the same week Dr. Tiller was murdered, this appointment is an insult to women and a frightening sign of things to come.
It may have been an oversight but I notice your list doesn't include what is the harm in making sure that young people of both sexes understand birth control and making sure that birth control is available to them and cheap enough for them to afford.
There isn't any harm is 'educating' women on abortion, and there isn't any harm in advocating abstinence or attempting to prevent teen pregnancy. Restricting the attempts to solve the problems to those two efforts, however, simply and obviously DOES NOT WORK.
The idea that there is abortion on demand is pure myth and one that was cooked up by those who are against women's rights. No woman casually goes to a clinic for "contraceptive" purposes. I hope you don't really believe that.
When you speak of "information" a red light goes off in my head. I assume you are suggesting that women look at dead fetuses before entering the clinic? That isn't information that is harassment and intimidation. There is plenty of literature available for a woman to make an informed decision. And that is what sex ed. is for.
Great article! When I saw that Obama had chosen a pro-life person - obviously I did a mental double-take, but I KNEW he had his reasons...I'm SO glad we have a reasonable president who understands the types of people we need as leaders.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
