Thursday, March 5, 2009
I wonder, if we step back a moment, and put aside the question whether or not we think Pres. Obama was the better candidate last November, whether there is any disagreement about the following: (1) Sebelius's record on abortion-related matters is a bad one -- one that, considered in light of mainstream understandings of Catholic teaching, is not defensible -- regardless of the circumstances that led to Tiller being present at the Governor's mansion. (For more on this record, go here.) (2) It is unfortunate that Pres. Obama chose, as his point-person on health-care issues, a Catholic whose record on abortion is as bad as hers is, given that the President could easily have chosen someone else to pursue this agenda -- and, indeed, could have structured this agenda in such a way that it did not involve divisive pandering to abortion-rights groups.
I mean, does *anyone* on this blog *really* have any doubt that Gov. Sebelius is a down-the-line abortion-rights supporter, who has sought out and worked hard to merit the support (financial and otherwise) from abortion-rights groups? These facts are not really in dispute, are they?
I have countless times on this blog conceded the point that faithful, reasonable, pro-life Catholics could have disagreed over the last election (which is not to say that I am able to see how such Catholics could embrace the implausible claim that Obama was, in fact, the *more* pro-life candidate). What I do not understand, though, is why it is thought necessary to form "Catholics for Sebelius" groups, when her record is so extreme, on a matter of such importance (not the only important matter, obviously, but a very, very important one).