Doug Kmiec debates George Weigel over Notre Dame

... in the Chicago Tribune:

• "Notre Dame's common ground", by Doug Kmiec.
• "The university's egregious error", by George Weigel.

I have to say, Kmiec suprises me in the lengths he will go to spin Obama's position on abortion:

... the Catholic Church is the foremost defender of unborn life, and properly, uncompromising about it. Obama is more pragmatic, accommodating other religious and scientific views that see the origin point of life differently.

The last time I checked, there was little scientific dispute about what happens upon fertilization. The result of conception is a human life (how could it be anything other?)

Weigel in rebuttal:

It is important to remember, however, that the Catholic defense of the right to life is not a matter of arcane or esoteric Catholic doctrine: You don't have to believe in the primacy of the pope, in seven sacraments, in Mary's assumption into heaven, in the divine and human natures of Christ—you don't even have to believe in God—to take seriously the Catholic claim that innocent human life has an inalienable dignity and value that demands the protection of the laws. For that claim is not a uniquely Catholic claim; it reflects a first principle of justice that anyone can grasp, irrespective of their religious convictions or lack thereof.

Obama and Notre Dame

• Deconstructing Notre Dame Spokesman's Comments on the Obama speech and honorary doctorate, by Dr. Francis Beckwith (Return to Rome). March 25, 2009.
  

• The Notre Dame Commencement, by Fr. James V. Schall. Catholic World Report:

  I cannot think of a single act—one so simple, so innocent, so effective—that serves to do exactly what he needs to have done, namely, plunge an arrow into the heart of Catholicism’s opposition to him, what there is of it.

• Notre Dame's Faustian Bargain, by Stephen Barr. First Things March 24, 2009:

  How can an institution that purports to be Catholic honor as a “doctor of law”—literally a “teacher of law”—a President who has made it very clear by word and deed that he intends to remove from the laws of this nation anything that defends unborn human life?

• Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ has weighed in, describing [ND President] Fr. Jenkins' invitation to Obama a "public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States"; praying "that you come to see the grave mistake of your decision, and the way it undercuts the Church's proclamation of the Gospel of Life in our day."
  

• Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute pens an open letter to Rev. Jenkins: "Father, I have no degree or awards from Notre Dame to return to you to indicate how strongly I feel about this scandalous decision. So here is what I have decided to do ..."
  

• Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin has issued a statement on Notre Dame, concluding that

  In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.

• Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston has also responded:

  ... Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a “Teacher,” in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

• More than 170,000 200,000 individuals have signed the Cardinal Newman Society's petition opposing Notre Dame's decision.
  

President Fr. John Jenkins responds to critics; Bishop John M. D'Arcy: "Notre Dame must ask itself if it has chosen prestige over truth."

• Notre Dame University president Fr. John Jenkins responded to criticism regarding the announcement of President Barack Obama as the 2009 Commencement speaker:

  "The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins said.
  

  These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue.
  

  "We are not ignoring the critical issue of the protection of life. On the contrary, we invited him because we care so much about those issues, and we hope . . . for this to be the basis of an engagement with him," Jenkins said.
  

  "You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade, and if you cannot persuade them . . . show respect for them and listen to them," he said.
  

  President Obama is "an inspiring leader who has taken leadership of the country facing many challenges: two wars, a really troubled economy, he has issues with health care, immigration, education reform, and he has addressed those with intelligence, courage and honesty," Jenkins said.

  One problem -- you're not engaging the President in "dialogue"; rather, you're a Catholic institution bestowing an honorary law degree on a man who has zealously defended Roe vs. Wade. (The blog Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex has more).
  

• From National Review, a symposium: A Moral Exemplar? - Should the University of Notre Dame honor our most anti-life president? with contributions by Rick Garnett, George Weigel, James V. Schall, SJ, Ralph McInerny, Fr. George Rutler (among others).
  

• Bishop John M. D'Arcy has issued a statement saying that he won't be attending Notre Dame's commencement exercises:

  This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.
  

  My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.
  

  I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.
  

  I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.
  

  Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.
  

• Catholic News Service's Chaz Muth reports that despite criticism, University of Notre Dame officials were standing firm on their choice of President Barack Obama as commencement speaker.
  

• More than 100,000 individuals have signed the Cardinal Newman Society's petition opposing Notre Dame's decision.
  

• Timely reading from Fr. James V. Schall:
  
  

George vs. Kmiec

Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec spar over email on the question: Does President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research allow federally funded human cloning? - George in the affirmative; Kmiec disagrees. The debate hinges on President Obama's statement that he opposed "reproductive cloning. According to George, this is meant as a loophole:

A ban on "reproductive cloning" is a ban on implanting a human embryo produced by cloning and permitting the embryonic human to develop into infancy. That is why pro-life critics of the ban on "reproductive cloning," including the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, refer to the legislation proposing the ban as the "clone and kill bill." That description is literally true. The bill forbids not the practice of somatic cell nuclear transfer or any other cloning technique, but allowing the cloned human being to survive. ...

What President Obama supports and has now opened the door to funding is human cloning—somatic cell nuclear transfer to create human embryos. What he opposes is permitting human embryos to be implanted if they were created by somatic cell nuclear transfer.

President Obama invited to give commencement address at Notre Dame; Catholics respond to the scandal

President Obama will be giving three commencement speeches this May -- one of which is at the Catholic[?] University of Notre Dame.

The Cardinal Newman Society (justifiably) has launched a website and petition in protest:

This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.

Instead Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.

The honor also comes amid great concern among Catholics nationwide about President Obama’s future impact on American society, the family, and the Catholic Church on issues such as traditional marriage, conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses, and expansion of abortion “rights.”

Taking issue with the decision, some students at Notre Dame have issued a challenge to Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President of the University of Notre Dame:

There has been overreaction on both sides, and it is important to keep the discussion civil - Uninviting Pres. Obama would be a disrespectful move, and having students turn their back on his speech, as some have called for, would be an immature gesture. As the preeminent Catholic university in America, we have an obligation to respect the office of the President of the United States, and his visit to our beloved campus can serve as the impetus for increased discussion about the role of Catholicism in the public square.

But the University should also use Pres. Obama's visit as an opportunity to reiterate its commitment to the teachings of the Church and the sanctity of life. We ask that you consider making a public statement, if not at the Commencement exercises themselves then in a highly visible public forum, distancing yourself and the University from his views, making it clear that the University disagrees in no uncertain terms with his views on the unborn, which stand in contrast to that of the Church's stance of protecting the most defenseless and voiceless among us. Awarding him an honorary degree without making clear that the University disapproves of his stance on issues regarding the sanctity of human life would be a disrespect to those students who, like ourselves, chose to attend this University based not only on its status as one of the country's premier institutions of higher learning, but a school that takes pride in its Catholic foundation and identity.

M.Z., blogging at Vox Nova, sniffs in dismissal:

To the perpetually offended: grow up already. Really.

Personally, I'd like to call to mind the admonition of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' in Catholics in Political Life:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Cardinal George meets with President Obama; urges Catholics to rally for conscience protection for pro-life health care workers

President Barack Obama met for half an hour on Tuesday, March 17 with Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George, reports the Catholic News Service:

"The president and Cardinal George discussed a wide range of issues, including important opportunities for the government and the Catholic Church to continue their long-standing partnership to tackle some of the nation's most pressing challenges," said the White House statement. "The president thanked Cardinal George for his leadership and for the contributions of the Catholic Church in America and around the world."

The statement from the USCCB said: "The meeting was private. Cardinal George and President Obama discussed the Catholic Church in the United States and its relation to the new administration. The meeting lasted approximately 30 minutes.

"At the conclusion, Cardinal George expressed his gratitude for the meeting and his hopes that it will foster fruitful dialogue for the sake of the common good," the USCCB statement added.

Mercy Sister Mary Ann Walsh, USCCB director of media relations, said she expected no further information about the meeting to be released.

We may not be privy to what transpired in the meeting between Obama and Cardinal George; however, I would imagine it might be related to matters of conscience:

Cardinal Francis George is urging Catholics in the United States to tell the Obama Administration to retain Health and Human Services regulations governing conscience protections for health care workers.

This is vital to keep the government from "moving our country from democracy to despotism," said Cardinal George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He delivered the message via video available on the Web at http://www.usccb.org/conscienceprotection and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NoCRwMqVzQ.

Those who want to protect conscience rights can speak out through an action alert at http://www.usccb.org/conscienceprotection.

"Respect for personal conscience and freedom of religion as such ensures our basic freedom from government oppression. No government should come between an individual person and God--that's what America is supposed to be about," Cardinal Francis George said. "This is the true common ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal protection for freedom of conscience and of religion--including freedom for religious health care institutions to be true to themselves."

"I ask you please to lLet the government know that you want conscience protections to remain strongly in place. In particular, let the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington know that you stand for the protection of conscience, especially now for those who provide the health care services so necessary for a good society," he said.

Cardinal Francis George taped the message after the Obama Administration announced in early March that it was rescinding the regulations which guarantee that health workers cannot be forced to provide services that violate their consciences, including abortions.

[Source: USCCB]

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke: Sebelius' appointment "greatest disappointment because she has publicly and repeatedly betrayed her Catholic faith"

Top Vatican Official Slams Choice of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services March 13, 2009:

The head of the Roman Catholic Church's highest office overseeing Church law has slammed the nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), calling the nomination "the source of greatest embarrassment" to the Catholic Church.

In an interview with Thomas J. McKenna, president of Catholic Action for Faith and Family, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, strongly supported the means by which the Governor has been disciplined by her bishop because of her public support for abortion. ...

When asked for his opinion on the nomination of Governor Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services he said, "As a Roman Catholic, her appointment is the source of the greatest embarrassment because she has publicly and repeatedly betrayed her Catholic faith."

"What is more, she has obstinately remained in her moral error after being admonished by, at least, three of her Bishops … Her position on the question of procured abortion is the source of the greatest scandal to Catholics and to all who uphold the natural moral law."

"No matter how good Governor Sebelius' record regarding other human life concerns may be, if she is not committed to the safeguarding of human life from its very inception, she should not be entrusted with the questions of health and human services for our nation" he continued.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted: "President Obama is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research"

The Bishop of Phoenix in Arizona has written a straight-talking column responding to President Barack Obama's executive order providing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research LifeSitenews.com reports:

"This means that American taxpayers will now be paying for the killing of human beings at a very early stage in their lives (as embryos), so that scientific research can make use of them for experiments that may or may not yield positive results," writes Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted in his diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Sun.

Unwilling to sugar-coat the reality with polite euphemisms, Bishop Olmsted says, "We U.S. taxpayers will now be forced to pay, whether we wish to or not, for the killing of our youngest brothers and sisters on the dubious hypothesis that their murders might, in the future, benefit others."

"What President Obama is doing is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research," he said.

Read the full text of Bishop Olmsted's column: "What should science trump?" in the Catholic Sun March 10, 2009.

Steele Disappoints.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele embarassed himself yet again this week with a disappointing interview with men's magazine GQ:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

As Ben Smith reports from Politico, Steele backtracked and sought to clarify what he meant:

I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.

I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a “choice” before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.

But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.

As Ed Morrisey (HotAir.com) notes, ""The two statements cannot be reconciled with each other. They are mutually exclusive. And Steele has offered both as his views in two successive days."

Patrick Archbold (Creative Minority Report) exclaims "Steele Must Go":

"I'm done. Michael Steele cannot lead the Republican Party. I don't want a leader who attacks conservative leaders. I don't want a leader who smiles and agrees when Republicans are called Nazis. I don't want a leader who waffles on abortion every time he's asked about it. That's not good enough. If this party wants the support of pro-lifers then Michael Steele must go."

Frankly, it's difficult to tell WHAT Steele actually thinks, given his tendency to play up to whatever audience he's got.

As Paul Zummo quips: "If the guy is going to have to issue a press release after every interview he gives, that's reason enough to give him the boot".

Can't help but agree. Sorely disappointed.

Obama overturns Bush administration's limition on embryonic stem stell research; REVOKES funding for ethical research into 'pluripotent' stem cells

Today, President Obama lifted the Bush administration's limits on embryonic stem cell research:

The president on Monday signaled a clear shift in tone from the Bush administration on a broad range of scientific issues.

Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Those siding with Bush say scientific advances allow researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.

House Republicans have rallied in opposition to the order, including Catholic House Republican Leader John Boehner:

"This decision runs counter to President Obama's promise to be a president for all Americans. For a third time in his young presidency, the President has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us. I fully support stem cell research, but I draw the line at taxpayer-funded research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and millions of Americans feel similarly. As we move forward, I am hopeful that the President will re-evaluate this and other controversial decisions that put government at odds with the sanctity of human life. Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions. Indeed, science and respect for human life can coexist. Politicians in Washington would be well-served to recognize this fact before they ask taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life simply to advance a particular agenda. Instead of asking taxpayers to pay for efforts that destroy life, Congress and the Administration should support bipartisan solutions like Rep. Randy Forbes' Patients First Act, which would promote stem cell research that is actually getting results."

and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"The administration's announcement on embryonic stem cell research represents a troubling shift in U.S. policy. With this announcement, the government is, for the first time, incentivizing the creation and destruction of human embryos at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. I support biomedical research and I believe the administration would be far better served by directing taxpayer funds to research on non-embryonic stem cells, which is both effective and ethical."

Joined by "Snowflake families" (children, who were formerly stored embryos and their parents), Representative Chris H. Smith stated that:

President Obama has chosen to turn back the clock, and starting today, will force taxpayers to subsidize the unethical, the unworkable over what works, and hype and hyperbole over hope. ...

Assertions that leftover embroyos are better off dead so that their stem cells can be derived is dehumanizing and cheapens human life. There is no such thing as leftover human life. Ask the snowflake children -- cryogenically frozen embroyos who were adopted -- their lives are precious and priceless.

(Click here to read Rep. Smith's full statement on Obama's stem cell order).

In 2005, Rep. Smith introduced the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005 to provide for the collection and maintenance of human [umbelical] cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research.

The Democrats for Life also issued a forceful denunciation of Obama's decision:

DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations. DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.

* * *
Update! As First Things' Wesley J. Smith points out, "We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn’t all he did today. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007.":

The Administration didn’t publicize this part of the President’s nasty work, but the now dead 2007 Bush order explicitly required funding for “alternative methods” of stem cell research—such as the new induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC), a process that changes skin or other cells such as hair follicles into pluripotent stem cells without making or destroying embryos. IPSCs offer so much promise—and all without the ethical contentiousness of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, these alternative methods are one of the few areas in which people who are pro-life and pro-choice, conservative and liberal, pro and anti-ESCR can agree upon, the very type of policy that this president said he wanted to pursue.

Relevant Reading

• Only a week ago it was reported by the Washington Post that "Scientists have developed what appears to be a safer way to create a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells, boosting hopes that such cells could sidestep the moral and political quagmire that has hindered the development of a new generation of cures."
  
• Executive Order on Embryonic Stem Cells 'A Sad Victory of Politics over Science and Ethics,' Says Cardinal Rigali United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. March 9, 2009.
  
• Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War: Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics, by Ryan T. Anderson. Weekly Standard March 9, 2009.
  
• Obama’s False Choice: What the president could stand to learn from his predecessor on science policy, by Yuval Levin. National Review March 9, 2009.
  
• Stem Cells: A Political History, by Joseph Bottum and Ryan T. Anderson. First Things November 2008.
  
• The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research: Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it, by Robert P. George and Eric Cohen. Wall Street Journal March 10, 2009.
  

Archbishop Naumann challenges Sebelius' appointment, record on abortion

Valerie Schmalz, OSV contributing editor: What precipitated writing Gov. Sebelius last May to tell her not to receive Communion?

Archbishop Joseph Naumann: I had actually written the August before that, in 2007, asking her not to present herself for Communion and I did not make that public. But then she violated that in March, and so in May I had written her again and made that public. Since then to my knowledge she has not presented herself for Communion.

OSV: She violated it by going to Communion in March (2008)?

Archbishop Naumann: Yep.

OSV: What does the appointment of Gov. Sebelius to HHS mean in terms of her policies? There are a whole bunch of people, like Doug Kmiec and others, who are saying when she was governor abortion dropped by 10 percent. This letter (from Catholics for Sebelius) says, “She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.”

Archbishop Naumann: I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. It’s true that abortion dropped during her term as governor but I don’t think she really had anything to do with it, although she likes to take credit for it. And in fact, during that time she vetoed measures that could have helped prevent abortion. At one time, she struck from the budget a pregnancy maintenance initiative that gave state funding to crisis pregnancy centers. Only when the legislature passed it by such an overwhelming margin that it was highly probable she would have been overridden, she allowed it to stay in the budget.

She’s on Emily’s List. During her last campaign she identified herself as one whose always been a leader in protecting a woman’s right [to abortion] and one who has tried to keep abortion safe legal and rare. Clinton I think perhaps was the one who originally developed that language and of course it's never safe for the child. What she did in the state of Kansas in terms of vetoing efforts to try to better regulate abortion clinics, certainly didn’t show a real concern for the safety of women either. And you perhaps know, although Kansas has some of the most restrictive laws on late-term abortion, no thanks to the governor, we’re kind of a center for late-term abortions because those laws are generally not enforced. And as the legislature has tried to do things to try to make them be enforced, again she has blocked those with vetoes.

She accepted money early in her political career from Dr. [George] Tiller who is a notorious abortionist in Wichita, and after that became politically not very convenient for her to do, Dr. Tiller formed a [political action committee] in which she was the principal beneficiary along with other equally staunch abortion-supporting politicians, and he put in hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her elected and re-elected. So I really think they may support Gov. Sebelius for this appointment, but they certainly can’t support her because she’s faithful in living the teaching of the Church on the life issues.

Excerpted from Our Sunday Visitor's interview with Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, who counts among his flock Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

Documenting Kathleen Sebelius' legislative record on abortion and ties to the abortion industry

Operation Rescue has compiled a compiled a fact sheet on Sebelius' ties to the abortion industry, chief among them her prominent friendship with late-term abortionist George R. Tiller, who is currently facing 19 criminal counts of having committed illegal late-term abortions (a frequent contributor to Sebelius' political campaigns).

Americans United for Life has also compiled an analysis of Sebelius' legislative record on abortion and finds that, "on balance, Gov. Sebelius’ record demonstrates that she is unfit to serve as HHS Secretary and should not be in a position in influence American healthcare policy for years to come."

Liberal Catholics defend Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius

The National Catholic Reporter runs an article boasting that a group of 26 Catholic leaders, scholars and theologians Mar. 1 publicly expressed support for the nomination of Governor Sebelius as the next HHS secretary. The text of the statement, released by Catholics United, criticizes "conservative Catholics" "who would use Gov. Sebelius’ faith to attack her. As Catholics, we find such partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive."

One wonders whether their criticism would extend to Sebelius' own Bishop, who has admonished her to refrain from communion

"until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion"?

Not suprisingly, among the signees are such familiar names as Christopher Korzen (Executive director of Catholics United); Fr. Thomas Reese (former editor of the Jesuit perodical America); and ... fervent apologist for all things Obama, Doug Kmiec.

Carl Olson provides details on the signees, including Ambassador Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, Professor Lisa Sowle Cahill, and Kari J. Lundgren.

Obama's picks Kathleen Sebelius for SHHS; "an insult to Catholics"

The White House confirmed that President Obama has selected Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Catholics Online's Deacon Keith Fournier puts it aptly: President Obama's selection of Kathleen Sebelius is an insult to Catholics across America -- particularly after Obama's repeal of the Mexico City Policy in January and the recent news that he is set to undo the Bush administration's "conscience rule" for health workers granting protection to those who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.

As Deacon Fournier also notes:

It appears that the release of news was timed to occur on the same day that “Catholics United”, a group which works in concert with “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good”, launched its new web site entitled “Catholics for Sebelius”. On that advocacy site this group stretches accuracy beyond anything they have done before. They argue that this Governor who has been told by her Bishop, Joseph Naumann, to refrain from presenting herself for Holy Communion until she takes “the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion” is an acceptable choice for Catholics.

Related

• Fact Check: Gov. Sebelius Disingenuous with Abortion Remarks DFW Catholics. February 28, 2009.
  
• Archbishop Naumann's Pastoral Discipline of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius Catholics in the Public Square May 31, 2008.
  
• In April 2008, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill on Monday that would regulate abortion procedures in the state that is infamous for its high number of late-term abortions.
  
• In April 2007, Governor Sebelius hosted a dinner in the Governor’s Mansion for late-term abortionist George Tiller and the staff of his clinic in April of 2007.