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.
“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.”
Tragic and sickening. Kathleen Sebelius is a radically anti-life. George Weigel says the following about Obama’s nomination to HHS.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
March 4, 2009 at 6:06 pm
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.
March 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm
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.
March 4, 2009 at 8:32 pm
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.
March 4, 2009 at 10:03 pm
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!!!!
March 4, 2009 at 10:15 pm
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)?
March 5, 2009 at 1:54 am
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.