The title above is his, not mine–KSH.
Pro-life groups have come out in force against health and human services secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius over her pro-choice record. But Sebelius, the Roman Catholic governor of Kansas, has talked publicly about being a pro-choice pro-lifer. Here’s an excerpt from her 2006 address at the Kansans for Faithful Citizenship conference, in which she discussed abortion more than any other issue:
Of course, no discussion of life and dignity of the human person can be complete without discussing the important issue of abortion.
My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation.
There is another way. By working in support of the common good we can better protect human life and the dignity of all people.
If it’s “wrong,” but not “murder,” then what is killed is somehow not human. Since this is scientifically false, she won’t face the plain fact that she supports murder. The leadership of her church has been forthright in teaching this, and she refuses to listen.
If it is the killing of innocent human beings, which it is, then why is making it criminal the wrong thing to do? Again, to make this work, what is killed must be defined as not human.
The tricky thing is whether she should continue to receive communion when she goes to Mass. Archbishop Nauman of Kansas City asked her privately not to do so, and only make it public when she ignored his request. See:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802605.htm
On the one hand, you could argue that the Church should not bring moral blackmail to bear on our elected representatives, who necessarily have to balance conflicting claims and do what they consider to be best for the whole population they serve. On the other hand, if politicians leave their conscience and their faith at the door of the Capitol (or Governor’s residence) then what difference does their faith make? Following Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium, two very important Vatican II documents, there is great stress today on all Catholics (and all Christians for that matter) being the Church in the world, bringing their influence to bear at work, at school, in the community, and as citizens. Being a Christian sometimes means walking a different path. I wish that people had more courage to stand out. The danger, of course, is that it might make truly Catholic politicians unelectable. It would certainly make it difficult for them to make their way up through the party machine.
It would make it difficult for them to make their way up through the Democratic party machine, certainly. I think I saw a report that the RC Bishop of Scranton has decreed that pro-abortion politicians may not receive in his diocese, which excludes Sen. Casey from communion.
#3: That’s a little confusing to me. Senator Casey has taken quite a few lumps in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and nationally for his (as his father’s also) consistent pro-life position.
Bruce Robison
I beg pardon if I am wrong, #4. I don’t follow PA politics closely. I had thought that the current Sen. Casey’s views, unlike his father’s, accommodate abortion on demand. If I’m wrong, then it must be some other politicians the Bishop of Scranton has in mind.
A [url=http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bob_Casey.htm]quick look[/url] at Sen. Casey’s website reveals what the controversy may be about. He supports the Plan B morning-after pill and voted AGAINST on banning federal grants to organizations which perform abortions. Otherwise his positions are more standard pro-life.
Katherine: I guess it’s a little murkey. Casey does not support abortion on demand and runs as a pro-life Democrat. However, he has a running conflict with the Bishop of Scranton, as per this recent article.
[url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022705.html]Senator Casey and the Bishop of Scranton[/url].
Nothing ever simple in this thicket.
Bruce Robison
None of this Casey diversion, however, allows Gov. Sebelius to describe herself honestly as pro-life in her political stances. She’s straddled the fence and worked with a notorious late-term abortion provider.
Katherine, per #8. I agree entirely.
Bruce Robison
The issue of abortion has been twisted and obfuscated (is that a word?) for so long, people can actually say things personally I believe abortion is wrong. However… and it sounds reasonable to our degraded hearing. But if you apply that formula to any other evil act, the absurdity becomes clear.
Our soon-to-be-former governor’s comments on abortion are credible on one side only. One of her major campaign contributors has been Dr. George Tiller, America’s best-known [url=http://www.drtiller.com/elect.html]post-viable abortionist.[/url]
Governor Sebelius had a luxurious dinner meeting with him (and other big donors) at the Governor’s Mansion … for which she conveniently forgot to reimburse the state for over a year until Kansas Republicans forced the media to address the issue. She subsequently re-paid the state and regretted her “oversight.”
I believe one of the turning points in the trajectory of the Diocese of Pittsburgh came in the late 1970s when its convention was – very narrowly – on record in support of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. It didn’t last, but it focused minds wonderfully.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
One might want to look at [url=http://www.lifenews.com/nat4880.html]this story[/url] on how “pro-choicers” view pro-lifers who disagree with the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius.
[blockquote]Chris Matthews has been on the pro-abortion side of the debate since before his time as a top Congressional aide for abortion advocates. Now the MSNBC host has gone overboard by referring to pro-life advocates who oppose pro-abortion Health Secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius as terrorists.
During his program “Hardball” on Monday night, Matthews worried that Sebelius would become the target of “the terrorism of the, of the anti-abortion people.”
Immediately after making the remark, Matthews appeared to realize his mistake and corrected himself to say, “I mean verbal terrorism.”
“Is she gonna get through the, the terrorism of the, of the anti-abortion people,” Matthews said during a question to Lois Romano of the Washington Post. “I mean verbal terrorism.”[/blockquote]
🙄
Personally I believe slavery is wrong. However…
I think that tingle has gone from Matthews’ leg up into his brain.
I support Kathleen Sebelius’ stance on abortion.
It is simplistic to assume that because abortion is wrong it should be illegal. Making abortions illegal won’t stop them. It may stop quite a few, but many many abortions will still be done in homes and in illegal ‘clinics’ with the consequent substantial rise in maternal morbidity and mortality. Adoptions would rise, but the majority of those not resorting to illegal abortions would choose to keep their ‘unwanted’ babies. While the middle-class and wealthy may adapt reasonably well to an unwanted addition to the family, it is the poor who would bear the major burden of banning abortions, and it would be their children that suffer – the neglect, the abuse and worse – from being raised in families poorly equipped physically, emotionally and financially to deal with the unwanted addition.
Christians, and Christian organisations have to look to other more loving (and costly) ways to deal with the abortion problem. Women generally only seek abortions when they can see no alternative. Churches need to look at ways to ‘sponsor’ children born into hardship, whether through direct financial support or indirectly via child clinics, day-care centers, assisting young single mothers with further education or whatever.
Before I retired I was an anesthesiologist. At one of my first interviews for a hospital appointment on qualification, I was asked if I was prepared to do abortions. (It was a fair question because I would be responsible for an obstetrics and gynecology list among others.) I said I wasn’t prepared to anesthetize for abortions fully expecting to be denied the appointment. As it turned out I was still appointed. Anyhow, whenever abortions were added to my list, another anesthesiologist (who was also a Christian) stepped in at considerable inconvenience to all concerned. This was a lesson to me that simply “saying no to abortions” only pushes the problem onto someone else.
Of course none of this makes abortions alright. There just has to be better ways to make them unnecessary.
[i]It is simplistic to assume that because abortion is wrong it should be illegal [/i]
Agreed. Not all wrongs are illegal. But if Sibelius is against abortion, why has she consorted so closely with her state’s leading abortionist?
[blockquote]There is another way. By working in support of the common good we can better protect human life and the dignity of all people.[/blockquote]
Um, yeah…that’s working real well. Since 1973, there have been over 45,000,000 babies killed by abortionists in the United States.
[blockquote]This was a lesson to me that simply “saying no to abortions†only pushes the problem onto someone else. [/blockquote]
Well, if Obama has his way, we won’t have to worry about that anymore since physicians and pharmacists will no longer be able to ‘opt out’ of morally repugnant things like abortions and dispensing abortifacients.