15 thoughts on “Catholics against Sebelius”

  1. Just as a point of clarification, if you go to this page that deals with vetoed bills at a Kansas Legislature site (kslegislature.org), there is no mention of a “SB 386”, but there is a vetoed “SB 389” that deals with abortion. The last part of section 7 (on page 12 [the last page] of the pdf file) of the SB 389 says:
    “ (k) Any private office, freestanding surgical outpatient clinic or other facility or clinic in which abortions are performed shall conspicuously post a sign in a location so as to be clearly visible to patients. The sign required pursuant to this subsection shall be printed with lettering that is legible and shall be at least three quarters of an inch boldfaced type which reads:
    Notice: It is against the law for anyone, regardless of their relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion. By law, we cannot perform an abortion on you unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform an abortion on you against your will. You have the right to contact any local or state law enforcement agency to receive protection from any actual or threatened physical abuse or violence. You have the right to change your mind at any time prior to the actual abortion and request that the abortion procedure cease.
    The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any private office, freestanding surgical outpatient clinic or other facility or clinic which performs abortions only when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.     ”
    So, evidently, the vetoed bill was SB 389, not SB 386.
    The italics are in the original, as it seems to have been added in conference.

  2. I mention it because catholicsagainstsebelius.org says it was SB 386. I have also emailed them about it.
    Also

  4. Or better yet, one can phone Senator Brownback’s office at (202) 224-6521 or fax him at
    (202) 228-1265

  5. From the news article:
    But isn’t one lesson of the 2008 election that values voters—white evangelicals—will vote for the Republican no matter what? John McCain did a poor job of evangelical outreach, but he got more evangelical votes than George W. Bush in 2004.
    But Republicans have to worry about Catholics.
    Let me repeat that again, “Republicans have to worry about the Catholics”.
    We have met the enemy and they are us.

  6. I don’t want Sebelius in Washington; but I’ve read one comment elsewhere suggesting that Senator Brownback would rather have her in the HHS than running for his Senate seat that he’s abandoning in the 2010 elections.
    I can either have her as my governor, HHS secretary, or possibly senator. Not a great bunch of choices…

  7. Jimmy,
    Why do I have to support anything to do with the Republican Party? Why can’t I just work within the Democratic Party for change. With blog posts like this, it would seem that you’ve sold your soul to the Republican Party. In my view, Catholics should focus on broader cultural and social change without becoming inordinately attached to any one party for any extended period of time. This kind of attachment is exactly what allowed for corrupt Republican political maneuvering over the past 8 years.
    – Tim

  8. Tim Lacy:

    Why do I have to support anything to do with the Republican Party? Why can’t I just work within the Democratic Party for change. With blog posts like this, it would seem that you’ve sold your soul to the Republican Party. In my view, Catholics should focus on broader cultural and social change without becoming inordinately attached to any one party for any extended period of time. This kind of attachment is exactly what allowed for corrupt Republican political maneuvering over the past 8 years.

    1. Jimmy didn’t write the post. Please read carefully.
    2. “Selling your soul” is scorched-earth hellfire rhetoric. Please consider very carefully whether you really need to throw around that kind of language.
    3. What on earth does opposing an abortion extremist for HHS secretary have to do with supporting anything to do with the Republican party? Sebelius’s stance on abortion is about as evil as it is possible to be. Pope John Paul II made it transparently clear that Catholic politicians have a grave obligation to oppose abortion, not assiduously promote it. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, if you acknowledge the Church’s teaching on life you ought to oppose Sebelius for HHS secretary.

  10. SDG,
    Read the second link—carefully. It has e-v-e-r-ything to do with supporting the Republican Party.
    I’m not for Sebelius as HHS secretary. I just don’t know what Catholics can do about it other than voice displeasure. Fine. But what we can do is work against her and other abortion supporters practically.
    I don’t come here often. Who is SDG?
    – TL

  11. Okay, so SDG is Mr. Jones—but I don’t get for what SDG is shorthand (___________ Derriere Guarde). – TL

  12. Okay, so SDG is Mr. Jones—but I don’t get for what SDG is shorthand (___________ Derriere Guarde). – TL

    Um, no, I’m not Mr. Jones, he blogs under his own name. SDG stands for Steven D. Greydanus (as well as Soli Deo Gloria). (You could have clicked my handle hyperlink, if you were curious.)

    Read the second link—carefully. It has e-v-e-r-ything to do with supporting the Republican Party.
    I’m not for Sebelius as HHS secretary. I just don’t know what Catholics can do about it other than voice displeasure.

    “Voicing displeasure” is precisely what signing the petition is about.
    The U.S. News & World Report article was framed by its author around the question “why Republican leaders have been all but silent on Kathleen Sebelius’s appointment to head the Department of Health and Human Services even as the party’s antiabortion base goes ballistic.” That doesn’t mean that Hudson’s motivation in opposing Sebelius is partisan, or that signing his petition is partisan.
    Hudson is likely appealing to the GOP to oppose Sebelius because (a) at the moment they’re the ones likeliest to sympathize on this issue and (b) given Hudson’s personal history with the GOP they’re with whom he might have some pull.
    That doesn’t mean that pro-life Democrats working for change within their party shouldn’t equally reach out to their own leaders and express their displeasure about the Sebelius appointment. I don’t see any reason why pro-life Democrats shouldn’t do that by signing this petition, but if you or some other pro-life Democrat would like to launch a competing Democrat-sponsored petition, I wouldn’t be surprised if Hudson would be the first to praise the initiative — and to sign the petition. Certainly I’d sign it (assuming you don’t have to self-identify as a Democrat to sign it; I don’t self-identify as a Republican, and wouldn’t have signed Hudson’s petition if it required me to).
    So, again, it’s about opposing Sebelius, not supporting the GOP.

  14. I concede that I attributed some guilt by association. Deal Hudson has been a prominent and outspoken supporter of the GOP, to the point that he does not believe that the Democrats can be rehabilitated on pro-life issues. That’s the kind of hopelessness that results in pro-lifers ~having~ to falsely affiliate with that party, as well as condoning statements by prominent Catholics to the effect that voting for Democrats is evil. Any citing of Hudson’s name as an authority carries that baggage. – TL

  15. I concede that I attributed some guilt by association. … Any citing of Hudson’s name as an authority carries that baggage.

    Fair enough. I concede that Hudson’s name carries that baggage and more. I don’t mean to cite him as an authority, just as a more or less known quantity. In any case, I would gladly sign anybody’s pro-life petition against Sebelius, be it GOP, Democrat, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, secularist, what have you.

Comments are closed.