Brownback Turns His Back – On Unborn

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

😛

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.

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.