Home > Opinion > Bonnie Erbe > Obama's True Colors: Appointee Opposes Abortion and Birth Control

Obama's True Colors: Appointee Opposes Abortion and Birth Control

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Why would she take a position with the Obama Administration or with Secretary Sebelius (who she adamantly defended in her nomination process) if she was opposed to their policy positions? Obama and Sebelius are both pro choice. Your conclusion is absolutely illogical. Kelley is a longtime progressive, serving in both the Kerry campaign and as a volunteer in the Obama campaign. Why would she commit herself to working for pro choice candidates and be in a pro choice party if she was anti abortion?
You should be thanking her for taking the divisive abortion issue OFF the table for Catholic voters and for the fact that Obama is choosing the next Supreme Court justice NOT John McCain.

VMHauser of UT 5:21PM June 12, 2009

That Alexia Kelley would be the target of attacks by fellow progressive organizations is absurd and can only suggest that Kissling and her former organization are out to sabotage the common ground appoach to the abortion issue, as they've tried to do in the past. Kissling and CFC are threatened by this approach because it will serve to further marginalize their already ineffective efforts. Alexia Kelley's common ground approach to life issues and the bredth of her experience on a variety of social justice issues, makes her the perfect appointment for this position. Her former organization, Catholics in Alliance is a social justice organization and has not taken a public position on contraception or birth control because its not an issue they work on.

VOBrien of MI 10:44AM June 10, 2009

"If they believe there is nothing inherently wrong with seeking an abortion, why would one have any interest in reducing the incidence rate?"
Your question reflects poor logic: Most people would agree that we want to reduce the incidence of, say, back surgery, not because we believe "seeking back surgery" is "wrong" but because such medical procedures in general are costly solutions to problems that would better be prevented beforehand.

Barbara Saunders of CA 1:32AM June 10, 2009

I am glad I voted for Nader/Gonzalez.

3rd Party of FL 2:56PM June 09, 2009

And the fact that Obama would do anything to be elected surprises you? And you write a column about the political arena. The media, by and large, just swallowed that "change" mantra hook, line, and sinker. How could you claim to be around politics "forever" and haven't yet gotten real clear on what it is all about.

Donna of NJ 11:57PM June 08, 2009

One of the commenters here is amused by people who both favor abortion rights, but at the same time would like to reduce the number of abortions. He thinks it's a "paradox" to be in favor of both. Well, you can stop being amused.
First of all, there is definitely NOTHING "inherently wrong with abortion". However, it is still a medical procedure; and, like any medical procedure, there is always some small amount of risk associated with it. (And of course, I'm talking about the mother here, not the fetus; so don't get started on that.)
In any case, the whole point of being in favor of abortion rights is to protect the health and well-being of the woman; and to allow her -- and her ALONE -- to decide whether or not she wants to carry a fetus to term, and actually bring another child into the world. Ideally, a woman might never need an abortion if she had adequate access to effective birth control; and in such a case there would be no need for her to deal with the small (but still greater than zero) health risk associated with an abortion procedure. On the other hand, there are also health risks for a woman who chooses to bring a child into the world; since, again, there are very clearly health risks (small, but greather than zero) associated with a birthing procedure.
So, you see, there really is no "paradox" here. If you have good birth control available, you can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies; and that, in turn, helps to achieve the goal of protecting the health and well-being of the woman. You have accomplished this by reducing the chances of exposing a woman to the risks of ANY medical procedure -- regardless of whether that procedure is an abortion, or a birth.

Tom R. of CO 10:38PM June 08, 2009

I think you are lost in the time space continuum or perhaps trapped in a parallel universe. Try to home in on my signal from earth..... W-A-C-K-O --- W-A-C-K-O --- ...

R.L.Schaefer of CA 9:31PM June 08, 2009

US News & World Report censors every comment that comes in. This is part of their right wing philosophy.

Troy of WI 5:48PM June 08, 2009

Typical hysterical woman trying to act academic where in fact she shows her bias and stupidity.

Troy Nolan of WI 5:46PM June 08, 2009

To say that this low level appointment is anything more than "fodder for the Media", if anything at all, is... well, dumb. The Supreme Court Nomination is a far better measuring stick...

KWC Germany 4:07PM June 08, 2009