Brownback Turns His Back - On Unborn
During last year's primaries, many Catholics and pro-lifers supported Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. This was in large part due to his prominent and vocal support for the pro-life cause. That is why the following absolutely boggles the mind.
After a day of uncertainty, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback said Tuesday he would vote to confirm [Radical Pro-choice Catholic] Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for secretary of Health and Human Services.Tragic and sickening. Kathleen Sebelius is a radically anti-life. George Weigel says the following about Obama's nomination to HHS.
“The President won the election and has nominated a Kansan to the cabinet,” Brownback said in a statement. “Despite our profound policy differences, I will support my fellow Kansan.”
Vigorous, Internet-based support for Sebelius’ nomination is already being offered by many of the same Catholic intellectuals who argued that Barack Obama was the real pro-life candidate in 2008.Our friend Leticia Velasquez is beside herself due to this pro-life hero's deplorable about face and provide likely (but pathetic) answer to the looming question, why?
And this, despite the fact that Kathleen Sebelius is an abortion radical by any reasonable definition of the term, whatever occasional gestures toward pro-life positions she has made. In her years as a state legislator in Kansas, for example, she voted to weaken or eliminate modest regulations of the abortion industry, including parental notification, informed consent, and “reflection periods” for women considering their options in a crisis pregnancy.
It hurts to have pro-life heroes in Congress. Only a month after my group KIDS gave the Senator a pro-life award for his work on the "Prenatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act" he does this; striking a mortal blow to pro-life opposition to Gov Sibelius's nomination.Governor Sebelius is everything that is wrong about politicians and in particular Catholic politicians and her nomination ought to be vigorously opposed. The Sen. Brownback we thought we knew would know that. If he did this for the sake of political expediency, he has more to answer to than just the voters. Remember Senator, what profiteth a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?
What are you thinking, Sen Brownback? Do you want her out of your way so you can become governor or Kansas? Isn't there any way to do this without selling out your pro-life ideals and your newfound Catholic faith?
26 comments:
Hmmm... maybe Brownback knows something we don't: perhaps some reason why a vote to confirm Sebelius would ultimately help him implement greater pro-life policies?
Well, this puts him in the same boat as Rick Santorum, who supported Arlen Specter over a pro-life challenger in his last election (if I recall correctly). This is very disappointing, to say the least.
Or it could mean that Brownback actually, you know, believes all that stuff about constitutional government, separation of powers, subsidiarity, etc.
It is a perfectly defensible act to vote to confirm a qualified candidate with whom one disagrees strongly on matters of policy. Indeed, one could argue that it is the responsibility of a Senator to do just that. The consitutional framework give the President the right to name his cabinet and while the Senate is given the power to "advise and consent" this power has historically been seen as a check on cronyism, corruption and gross mis-management, not an independent policy mandate for the legislative branch. This situation is in no way analogous to a vote on a piece of abortion-related legislation, where the proper exercise of a Senator's office allows and requires him to exercise his judgment, formed by conscience, on matters of policy.
If Sebelius is denied confirmation them President Obama will nominate, surprise surprise, another pro-choice candidate. And another. And another. And another until the Senate finally confirms one of them. In the meantime a massive set of government agencies will go without stable management, which will result in real tangible harm to people who depend on HHS for material support.
It is indeed a case of the sin of scandal for a professing Catholic to take such a public stand in opposition to Church teaching on abortion. But it is no business of the Senate to police scandal within the Catholic communion. That's the job of the bishops. One's obligation to advance the pro-life cause is not the least bit - not even the tiniest little bit - stronger because the opponents are professing Catholics as opposed to Methodists or Muslims or Atheists.
I'm with Christopher, let's not be in such a rush to judge.
Besides the sad fact is there is no point in fighting this, Obama has a (legal) right to appoint a pro-choicer and that is what he is going to do.
If nothing else though, this may further force the pro-choice politican issue, we know the KS Bishops have spoke on it, the silence from DC is deafening.
As to Brownback, he can actually do the pro-life movement a lot of good as gov. of KS. KS is a few laws away from being a state where abortion is out defacto.
sd,
Those are quite the claims you are making there. The Constitution gives the Senate the power of confirmation for all cabinet appointments, without any reservation whatsoever that such a power not be used to enforce an "independent policy mandate." Where is that in the Constitution, regardless of how the power has been seen historically? History does not bind the Senate; only the Constitution does.
Secondly, while I personally think that Senator Brownback is taking all of this a little too much in stride not to have an ace up his sleeve, make no error concerning the nature of his duty in the Senate: unless he does in fact believe for very good reason that the Sebelius confirmation will politically aide him to bring about a net pro-life result from the same confirmation, it is gravely wrong for him to vote to confirm, and, in my personal, limited understanding of canon law, he would thereby exclude himself from the objectively worthy reception of Holy Communion.
To put it simply: whenever, at any time whatsoever, positive divine or even ecclesiastical law conflicts with civil law, the former take precedent. You might as well burn the Constitution because, for Catholics, it really doesn't matter when it comes to abortion. This is part of why constitutionally secular democracy is a really bad idea.
~cmpt
I "third" Christopher Michael's comments. Politics is politics. Sam is not a cleric; he is a pro-life politician (who FAR TOO CATHOLICS SUPPORTED DURING THE PRIMARIES, FYI!!!!!) So, he MAY have made some back-room deals and hand-shakes on this one that we as private citizens are not privvy to (i.e. "approve this nomination and we will approve your next ear-mark for Kansas health services where you can designate as much money as you wish to Catholic hospitals which do not allow abortions"). That is just the way politics are conducted.
So, to echo the previous sentiment, let's let this play out before we condemn. Let's not forget that the NRLC gives Sam a score of 100% on pro-life causes. So THAT ALONE should merit giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
Christopher Michael wrote:
"it is gravely wrong for him to vote to confirm, and, in my personal, limited understanding of canon law, he would thereby exclude himself from the objectively worthy reception of Holy Communion"
How in the world do you pull this out of canon law? Voting to confirm a pro-Choice person (Catholic or not) to be secretary of HHS is not a vote for a law liberalizing abortion nor is it a vote for an executive or judge who has the power to liberalize abortion. Kathleen Sebelius does not get to decide whether or not abortion is allowed in the U.S. She implements the policies within the law of the President, who will (barring a tremendous conversion of heart) govern in a pro-choice manner no matter who is named head of HHS.
The key term here in the phrase "material cooperation with evil" is "material." For an act to be gravely wrong it must either be directly evil or it must materially support another directly evil act. To evaluate whether the standard of materiality is met we need to make a prudential judgment about whether the act in question actually has a menaingful effect on whether the downstream evil act takes place. In this case, there's no way you can make that argument with a straight face.
Or to put it another way, a Catholic taxi driver in DC would not be committing a gravely evil act by giving Kathleen Sebelius a ride to work.
"it is gravely wrong for him to vote to confirm, and, in my personal, limited understanding of canon law, he would thereby exclude himself from the objectively worthy reception of Holy Communion"
Yeah, in this case let's leave the canon law analysis to the experts.
Back-room deals and hand-shakes or no, this is very disappointing. I cannot fathom a reason grave enough to defend Brownback on this vote at all. I believe this will be the harbinger of the end of Sam's political career.
The quote from Saint Matthew's Gospel rings so very true, doesn't it.
Dude. It's one thing to vote for a radical pro-abort for head of transportation and cite "policy differences."
HEALTH. AND. HUMAN. SERVICES.
Is it possible he believes that Gov. Sebelius would be replaced by someone far better as Governor? I don't know. I haven't looked it up yet. But he could have a reason...I hope.
As M. Swaim said, it is not like she is moving into a position where her radical views on abortion are inconsequential to her job. At HHS, the decisions she makes can have direct - negative - impact not only on the unborn, but anyone who has objection to the wholesale slaughter.
Supporting her for a national policy position directly related to abortion is unacceptable and any resort to hoping that it is ok because she *might* be replaced by someone prolife in Kansas in only rationalization. Weak rationalization at that.
sd,
"For an act to be gravely wrong it must either be directly evil or it must materially support another directly evil act."
Well, voting to confirm her nomination is definitely material support.
"To evaluate whether the standard of materiality is met we need to make a prudential judgment about whether the act in question actually has a menaingful effect on whether the downstream evil act takes place. In this case, there's no way you can make that argument with a straight face."
What story are you reading here, friend? He is agreeing to confirm her nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services, where she will not only advise the president very closely on matters directly and indirectly relating to abortion and contraception, but will exercise, at least in some limited manner, direct executive power over agencies that make and enforce policy in these matters.
To put it succinctly: She will be in a position that will give her more than sufficient power to make abortion more or less available or convenient, as she so chooses in cooperation with the president. Obviously, from her own statements and actions, she has made it clear to any reasonable person that she intends to liberalise the ready availability of abortion and contraception to the fullest extent possible under the law with the powers granted her by the president and Congress. Such a thing is nothing if not evil. And voting to confirm her to the office that will give her the power and political influence to proceed with such an agenda is a textbook case of culpable material cooperation. So why on earth would you dream that a vote confirming Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services is not material cooperation with the formal evil she so obviously intends to commit, barring, of course, some worthy political stratagem on the part of Senator Brownback to bring about a net decrease in the availability or frequency of abortions, such as a possible gubernatorial run? I'm fairly confident that if you found yourself a Catholic encyclopedia and looked up "material cooperation," you would find a big picture of Mr. Brownback at this upcoming confirmation hearing.
And the idea that we ought to succumb to the evil of Mr. Obama's appointees because he is the validly elected president or because he will nevertheless find a way to implement his policies by circumventing the Congress reeks badly of utilitarianism. Just for the record, Catholics don't subscribe to utilitarianism.
It occurs to me now that perhaps the Senator is lying when he says he will vote to confirm. The administration has been gearing up for a fight ever since the rumours first started that Sebelius would go to HHS. Maybe he is attempting to defuse the Democratic war machine while silently sabotaging the confirmation in collaboration with other pro-life senators? That'd be wicked smart, very embarassing to the Obama administration, and quite hilarious too.
~cmpt
I urge you all to write to Senator Brownback. Here is the link to his .gov site: http://brownback.senate.gov/public/contact/emailsam.cfm
Lots of emails do make a strong impressions on Senators. My message to him is as follows:
Senator Brownback,
Your promised support for Gov Sebelius to lead HHS renders damage to your national image as a reliable, principaled example of the kind of leadership required to end or strictly curtail abortion.
Sebelius is a Kansan no doubt. But nationally she is known more as an abortion rights advocate/promoter than as a Kansan.
What you propose to do is to temporarily and artificially confine YOUR identity to "Kansan" so that you can temporariliy and artificially identify yourself with an opposition leader who does NOT confine HER identity to "Kansan". Is your seat really that much at risk back home? Drop the hometown cheerleading posture;
Meet with Sebelius before you cast your vote;
Ask her the tough questions on abortion (you know what they are and how to ask them);
Retract your support; Explain it in the well of the Senate.
Sebelius does not need your vote. Truth and Justice do.
Truly,
James McCrery - Washington, DC
ps see you at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast this year?
I thought Brownback wanted to run for govenernor in 2010 --- Though if he votes to confirm her just to get a weaker, less popular opponent, he's a jerk.
Especially since it's not even like she NEEDS his vote. He could take a principled stand AND assure his election, if he wanted.
Blech. I'm really beginning to think that no sane and decent man actually runs for or wins elected office in this country.
:P
I am trying to give Brownback the benefit of the doubt here. I think it can be assumed that whoever Obama nominates for HHS is going to be nothing short of a monstrosity on abortion. Sebelius is certainly no worse than Obama on this issue. They are equally monstrous.
But if Kansas can rid itself of Sebelius, that could be a good thing.
Sebelius, of course, has vetoed anti-abortion legislation in Kansas in 2003,2005, 2006, and again in 2008.
I have no other thought on why Brownback would support her nomination.
Sebelius is term limited and can't run for governor again, but she was likely to run for Brownback's Senate seat since he's honoring his term limits pledge.
Brownback is probably doing this to ensure that his Senate seat remains in pro-life hands. If she's in Washington rubber stamping Obama's horrible policies, she's not running for his Senate seat where she currently leads the two Republicans running by 20 points.
If she wins a Senate seat, the Democrats have their precious 60 votes and can pass anything they want without any interference from Republicans.
The changes Sebelius will make to our country, to the healthcare system, to the Catholic hospital system, will make Brownback rue the day.
Its odd to me how the pro life movement is hideous and vitriolic to Brownback.
The President is where the anger should be directed. Sebelius will have 0 policy making authority as head of HHS. Pro abortion policies are going to be the result of a pro abortion president, not because of Kathleen Sebelius, and certainly not because of Brownback.
Brownback gets a 100% rating from the NRL year after year. Republicans would have no chance of keeping her from Brownback's seat if she stayed in Kansas and ran for it. Sen. Sebelius would be a huge blow to the pro life movement. So, yes, I can see that voting for her confirmation would cause less damage then her becoming a Senator.
Anyone Obama nominates was going to be as bad or worse than Sebelius. I think Brownback recognized that and figured that it might as well be someone who is connected to Kansas. Obviously, he and Roberts are supporting her because she knows Kansas and cares about Kansas. I just don't see why everyone does't understand Brownback's reasoning.
I think it has something to do with him announcing his support. His public support wasn't necessary for her to pass through a Senate confirmation.
He could've just stayed silent. Which makes me wonder that maybe some deal was made for his announced support.
This totally floored me. Still seeking answers. Is the following excerpt from Brownback's statement a clue?
We look forward to working with her on issues important to the state including a National Cancer Institute Designation at the University of Kansas Cancer Center.
I don't know. I surely hope not.
Anonymous wrote:
Its odd to me how the pro life movement is hideous and vitriolic to Brownback. The President is where the anger should be directed.
Forgive me, but this makes very little sense; it's not an "either/or" game. Anyone with reasonable intelligence is perfectly capable of opposing more than one person at a time; or would you suggest that, since Barack Obama is the "prime target", no one could possibly oppose the policies of, say, John Kerry?
The anger at Pres. Obama is because of his single-minded embrace of the culture of death; but the anger at Senator Brownback is due to his apparent betrayal of the pro-life cause (forcing us, and others, to scramble for possible explanations--none of which hold moral water, IMHO). Somehow, it's even easier to deal with an avowed moral enemy (Obama) than with a Judas.
Is there an explanation which would exonerate Sen. Brownback's moral judgment (above and beyond mere [craven] political expediency)? Mathematically, the probability isn't zero... but I seriously doubt it.
Calling him Judas is just hyperbole. Its not like he's supporting Tiller here. Under Kathleen Sebelius, abortions went down.
What is troubling is how quickly conservatives condemn Brownback to be some sort of traitor to the cause. It only hurts the conservative movement.
Senator Brownback's support for her helps the pro life movement. Kathleen will not be a Senator. Encouraging her to go to Washington was the right thing to do, because it keeps her from being a Senator.
Brownback could have put up a largely symbolic fight to Sebelius at the cost of Senator Kathleen Sebelius giving Democrats 60 votes in the Senate. And that would be disastrous to the country and to the future generations of unborn children.
TO MICK:
Obviously, you know nothing about politics in Pennsylvania. Santorum supporting Specter is NOTHING like Brownback's move today. In order to keep Specter as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and eventually get Alito and Roberts on the bench, Santorum and other pro-life Pennsylvanians had to vote for Specter as we all knew that Toomey wouldn't have been able to pull off a victory over Hoeffel (DNC candidate) AND get two pro-life Supreme Court Justices on the bench - because he wasn't on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Toomey). Specter also would have been an asset in other areas; however, he has been a traitor to the party in many ways and many here in the Commonwealth have a target on his back for 2010. His days are numbered.
Sorry, I am so sick and tired of people griping about Rick Santorum!!!!
Anonymous wrote:
Calling him Judas is just hyperbole. Its not like he's supporting Tiller here.
"He could have formulated a worse betrayal, so this must not be a betrayal?" Sorry... that simply doesn't wash.
Under Kathleen Sebelius, abortions went down.
(*sigh*) Are we playing "count the fallacies", here? Moving from "tu quoque" to "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" isn't helping your case, friend. Ethics deals with first principles, not with expediency... and certainly not with what happen to be the "results". If you think you can defend Gov. Sebelius' abortion advocacy using Catholic theology (since she is, after all, "Catholic"), then I'm all ears. But if you're going to pull a "let's cherry-pick the statistics to put a better face on the candidate who promotes an intrinsic evil", I'm afraid you're wasting your time.
I'd wager that I could find an interval of months or years during Hitler's regime when Jewish deaths actually *declined*, as well. Would that move you to conclude that Hitler was a good influence? There *is* the small matter of his advocacy of that genocide... just as there's the small matter of Gov. Sebelius' positive *advocacy* of the greatest bloodbath known to mankind! Case in point: if abortions "went down" on her watch, you can be sure that she had no good contribution to that fact.
What is troubling is how quickly conservatives condemn Brownback to be some sort of traitor to the cause. It only hurts the conservative movement.
Perhaps it'd help to know that, as such, I couldn't give a fig for the "conservative movement". To the extent that "conservatives" support the moral law, they do good (and should be supported/encouraged); to the extent that they violate the moral law, they do evil (and should be opposed/admonished).
Senator Brownback's support for her helps the pro life movement. Kathleen will not be a Senator.
If Gov. Sebelius were being moved to the position of "shoe-shiner", I might say that you have a point. But can you explain to me why you think having her move to the head of HHS (which deals with "health-related" issues such as abortion, conscience rights of physicians, "morning-after" pills, euthanasia, and the like) is somehow "less of a threat" than having her be a senator (or, better yet, an ex-senator)?
Encouraging her to go to Washington was the right thing to do, because it keeps her from being a Senator.
See above.
Brownback could have put up a largely symbolic fight to Sebelius at the cost of Senator Kathleen Sebelius giving Democrats 60 votes in the Senate.
Ah, yes... so expediency trumps morality. Exquisite ethics, that.
And that would be disastrous to the country and to the future generations of unborn children.
Now, I must ask you to consider this reasonably! If a "conservative" refuses to stand up against a moral evil for fear of "triggering retaliation", he/she shows himself to be a non-conservative, thereby. Given such a paradigm, what could such a person possibly defend, except that which the liberals don't care to fight (i.e. items of the liberal agenda)?
The argument that Brownback is supporting Sebelius for the HHS post to keep her from running for the U.S, Senate doesn't wash. Sebelius' nomination is going to be approved by the Senate with or without Brownback's support. It's not like he is the deciding vote. He can vote against her nomination - and she'll still become the new HHS Secretary and not be running for the Senate seat.
I am truly disappointed by this. The only acceptable explanation is that Brownback is getting some behind-the-scences pro-life benefit for his support, but I don't it. Why would the Obama administration give away something significant on life issues for his vote on a nomination which is already a foregone conclusion?
Sadly, as a former political staffer, I've seen some good people be turned by their time in politics. The most obvious answer to this is probably the right one. Brownback is backing Sebelius because he is looking to bringing home more bacon for Kansas, where he is going to be running for governor in 2010. Sad, but all too likely true.
Post a Comment