Leaders of some pro-life organizations are laying into long-time pro-life champion U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, for issuing a statement congratulating Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius upon her nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services. These criticism are misplaced, short-sighted, and ungrateful.
MISPLACED: By criticizing Brownback, these pro-life leaders are creating a side story concerning a fight between pro-lifers. Rather than focusing on attacking Sebelius, and making her the focus of the story, the story becomes instead pro-life activists v. Brownback.
SHORT-SIGHTED: The criticism is short-sighted for several reasons. First, Kathleen Sebelius WILL get confirmed, with or without Sen. Brownback’s vote. Democrats have 58 votes in the upper chamber. The HHS seat has been open for a long while, and is the last Obama cabinet slot to be filled. Democrats are not going to let this one fail.
Second, if it wasn’t Sebelius at HHS, we would get a different pro-abort at HHS – this is a pro-abort president and HHS affects numerous abortion-related issues. He has to placate his NARAL allies by putting a pro-abortion politician in the HHS slot. So then it’s just whether we’ll get this pro-abort or that pro-abort. And at least with this pro-abort, she is prevented from running for the open US Senate seat in Kansas. Brownback is following his term-limits pledge, thus creating an open seat in 2010. If Sebelius ran for it, she would be a very strong candidate, and probably the only Democrat who could win (and help continue to revive the Kansas Democratic Party). With her in the cabinet, the NRSC can sleep easier knowing that seat is much safer.
Third, pro-life leaders should want Sen. Brownback to do well back in Kansas. A healthy movement takes care of its own. He’s running for governor of Kansas in 2010. To oppose the popular incumbent governor’s nomination would hurt his standing among the people of Kansas. Pro-life leaders should accept the political necessity of a senator supporting a popular nominee from his home state.
Fourth, Sen. Brownback’s opposition to the nomination is not necessary to make Obama pay a political price for it. They can blast Sebelius, issue press releases, hold press conferences, set up websites, raise money, etc. just fine on this one. They can work with the pro-life members of the Senate Finance Committee to ask very tough questions during her nomination hearing before that Committee (a committee on which Brownback does not sit). There’s no reason they need to make Brownback an issue at all.
UNGRATEFUL: Sam Brownback has been a hero for the pro-life cause throughout his congressional career. He has made it his signature issue. To write him out of the movement over one vote that has already been lost is more than just silly, it is profoundly ungrateful for his many years of yeoman’s work on these issues.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
This is by far the best analysis of the situation I have seen by ANYONE. Good work on putting out the truth.
Fabulous! So appreciate someone summing this up so well. It’s tough to be a “mature, rational conservative” in Kansas… It’s assumed by the pro-life community, that one must be emotional and erratic to be conservative. Keep it up!
Dear Daniel, Your post calling the criticism of some pro-life leaders “misplaced, short-sighted, and ungrateful” is not entirely accurate.
“Misplaced:” Yes, disunity among pro-lifers is not helpful. However, by the Senator’s endorsement* of Sebelius he has to some degree placed himself in league with the forces of death. Perhaps, the criticism of some of the pro-life leadership can help to minimize the scandal caused by Brownback’s choice. (*In the your opening paragraph you characterize his statement as congratulatory – which if properly worded indeed could be nothing more than a civil thing to do. However, Brownback has actually ENDORSED her nomination and pledged to vote to confirm his “fellow Kansan.”)
“Short sighted:” You lay out well what is probably the political calculation made by the Senator’s camp. Agreed, Sebelius will likely be confirmed, with or without Brownback’s support. This makes your second point mute. Re: your 3rd point. A reminder, he had the option of not opposing (not voting) on her nomination. Re: your 4th point. Yes, there is a reason to pay attention to the “issue” of a major pro-life Senator endorsing a person who is a notorious supporter of abortion rights: it may show that this man is willing to choose political expediency over principle. Should the unfortunate episode be put behind us? Yes. But some folks may rightly conclude that his “pro-life” credentials have been compromised. Re: your 4th point. So, I guess one is to conclude that Senator Brownback’s endorsement is helpful to the pro-life cause and helps make Obama pay a “political price?”
“Ungrateful.” In my opinion you rashly jump to this conclusion. What you have laid out is largely political calculus; but you have ignored that there are moral issues involved. Am not accusing the Senator of sin: but, on the face of things, we have a man who has endorsed a very able “pro choice” woman to a post where she can help advance the culture of death in a possibly dramatic ways. His endorsement is also a source of scandal.
Sometimes in making a decision I find it helpful to ask such as: would St. Thomas More have done this? Would any of the Saints have made such an endorsement? Well, at the danger of seeming “emotional,” and thus being judged as having lost my faculties to “reason,” I say: NO.
Daniel,
As far as Brownback’s “endorsement” of a fellow Kansan: Politics is a lot like baseball. Sometimes your team requires leverage, such as the ability to turn a double-play. To do this, you must get a runner on first, without risking a potential home-run by the batter. You could hit the batter with the ball for an automatic first base, but this incurs wrath from “both sides of the isle.” So you throw four balls and walk the batter as part of an overall strategy to win the game. That game win for Brownback is the governorship in 2010. By every angle, he played the right strategy.
This is fantastic commentary. You are truly an analyst, as opposed to an ideologue. I’m sure I speak for many intelligent, freedom loving Americans in saying how much I respect you and your talents.