Senate passes Kennedy-Brownback Down Syndrome Bill

Legislation which has the potential to encourage parents to give life to babies with Down Syndrome and discourage abortions has passed the Senate:

WASHINGTON — Doctors would have to give more comprehensive information to expectant mothers who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome or other medical conditions under a measure approved by the Senate.

The bill, passed late Tuesday on a voice vote, is the product of an unusual partnership between Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, an anti-abortion Republican, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, an abortion-rights advocate from Massachusetts.

Brownback hopes the measure discourages women from terminating pregnancies if they test positive for Down syndrome or certain other conditions, such as spina bifida or cystic fibrosis. Between 80 percent and 90 percent of women who learn they are carrying a fetus with Down syndrome opt for an abortion.

The bill would require doctors to provide parents with the latest information about caring for children with disabilities as well as available support services and networks that can help parents unfamiliar with Down syndrome. Similar legislation is pending in the House. ... (Read the rest)

Congratulations to Senator Brownback and Ted Kennedy for coming together in support of this legislation.

Related

• See The Catholic Down Syndrome Society for regular updates on this topic.
  
• Unlikely to Survive: Few Down Syndrome Babies Making It to Birth, by Father John Flynn, LC. "One of the consequences of the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican party's vice-presidential candidate is renewed attention to Down syndrome."
  
• UPDATE Early Help: Special needs call for a special attention, by Sam Brownback. National Review September 30, 2008.
  

Brownback on Palin

Christiannity Today runs a Q&A with Catholic Senator Sam Brownback, including his thoughts on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for VP:

What do you think of the Palin pick?

It’s excellent. I think it was a game change. You know, the American public wanted to vote for history, and that was some of the appeal of Barack Obama to show yes, we can do something like this. Well, now you can vote for history by voting for the Republican ticket, by placing the first female vice president of the U.S.

What challenges do John McCain and Sarah Palin face, particularly among evangelicals?

You know, I don’t think they face much challenge among evangelicals now, other than getting them out to vote and pushing their neighbors to get out to vote. It’s probably more of an organizational challenge at this point. And that can take some time but it’s doable.

Do you think people will be as excited about McCain on November 4 as they were for Bush in 2004?

That’d be hard to do. You know, because Bush was one of them, really spoke the language and knew it in his heart, and John loves the country but is a different candidate. I think he’s going to get their votes and now with the pick of Palin who may become one of the future leaders of the overall movement, I think he’s really endeared himself to the faith base of the party even if they don’t see it in him as much as they’d like to.

Barack Obama speaks more openly about his faith and has an intense religious outreach. Do you think that will work?

I don’t think so, because he’s just off on the core subjects. That came through so clear at Saddleback, that he’s not there on life, he’s not there on marriage. It came through at the Democratic convention in his big speech – he talks about supporting abortion and same-sex marriage. And I just think those for a lot of people are the portal issue. You’ve got to get the basics right before I can look at you on other issues. And if you can’t get the basics right, how can I trust you on a broader set of issues? ... READ MORE

"Value of Each and Every Human Life" in Resolution Honoring Pope Deemed "Objectionable Language" by Senate Dems [UPDATED]

Pope resolution passes after "life" language removed:

While Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to Washington received wall to wall coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer briefly held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life."

The measure later cleared the Senate Thursday afternoon after the sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), dropped the reference to "human life" because some Democrats saw it as a reference to abortion. According to Republican aides, Brownback, a devout Catholic, did not want a high profile fight over the resolution, which was adopted on a voice vote. In fact, Brownback blackberried his staff from the Pope's mass at Nationals Park to direct them to drop the references to human life.

A copy of the original resolution can be found here. The new resolution, with the human life language and references to religious expression in public buildings removed, is here.

"There was some politics involved here, and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Three Senate Republican aides involved in the issue say that Boxer objected to the "life" language, which Democrats see as an implicit reference to the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. Senate Democratic leadership offices declined to comment but referred questions to Boxer's office, which has not responded to Politico's inquiries this morning.

[More]

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes in a couple of entries at The Corner:

A Senate aide adds that it was not just the life language that was an issue in the resolution in the Senate:

[Boxer's] spokesperson claims that the reference to the "naked public square" was about "religious expression on public buildings." This is a rather uninformed and cramped understanding of what that language means. I guess we can take comfort from this episode that leading liberal Democrats have zero understanding of what makes Catholics and religious people tick.

(emphasis added)

... This is what was ridiculously cut:

"that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties"

and

"Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life"

UPDATE
Paul at Thoughts of a Regular Guy writes:

... But it seems to me that there's a problem from the pro-abortion side: If it's "objectionable" to witness "to the value of each and every human life," then which human lives does Sen. Boxer wish to deny the value of?

If she denies the value of unborn human lives, desiring to maintain the right to kill them for any reason or no reason, then isn't Sen. Boxer admitting that the unborn, are, in fact, human lives?

Isn't this essentially an admission that what happens in abortion is, in fact, an outright denial of the value of human life?

Some are looking to place a portion of the blame on Sen. Brownback for "backing down" on the "objectionable language".

See also "Pope Too Controversial for Senate Democrats".


UPDATE #2 (21 April)
Excellent insight from Darwin Catholic:

... More deeply, though, I think this speeks to a chasm that runs through American politics. There is a not-so-small portion of the American citizenry for whom the idea that Pope Benedict and the Church he leads should have anything to say on issues such as human life, the source and nature of human freedom, etc. is not only incorrect, but also offensive. The Daily Kos is so consumed with hatred at the idea that the pope might mean anything for Americans and American civic discussion that in its coverage of the stalling of the Senate resolution, it refers to the pope only as "this pedophile enabler". And Senator Boxer sees the pope so exclusively through the lens of American partisan politics that she sees the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" as offensive.

It's clearly not the case that all those who tend to vote Democrat are radical secularists and abortion advocates. However, a large enough number of those who are radical secularists and/or abortion advocates are also passionate Democrats that any national-level Democratic candidate who wants to be successful at this time seems to feel it necessary to do nothing that will seriously offend that constituency -- and a certain amount to please them. (Thus the invariable realization by any Democratic politican who decides to run for national level office that any pro-life convictions he personally held were only "personal".)

This is what makes me deeply, deeply skeptical of the claim, by self-identified conservatives and Catholics such as Prof. Kmiec, that an Obama presidency would somehow bring in an era of self responsibility and respect for others that would help heal the abortion issue more than anything continued restrictions and conservative Supreme Court appointments could achieve. It's not that many on the liberal side of the political spectrum do not have passionate feelings about helping "the little guy" as they identify him, but those feelings are always couched in terms that make abortion, euthenasia, and a host of other, smaller (and thus far more widely accepted) assaults on human life not only credible, but merciful.

***
Boxer, and a not small portion of the base she represents, seems to see the pope and the Church he leads in strictly partisan terms. So rather than taking the phrase "witnessing to the value of each and every human life" to be something that everyone could agree to in a spirit of welcome (while in her mind holding to disagreement as to what the term "every human life" could be taken to mean) she sought to have it struck out, along with the suggestion that religious belief had a place in public conversation and as the root of our liberties.

Until someone seeks to root this kind of thinking out of the Democratic Party mainstream, I think serious Christians would be right to remain leary of a claimed opennes in that party to "people of faith". If positions and beliefs are to be held to mean anything, it would seem that one of the things that the Democratic Party would like to tell us is: However much you may agree with us on other issues, pro-lifers and Christians need not apply -- unless you want to leave your faith at the door and act like a good little secularist...

[More]

Obama’s Catholic Advisory Council

(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez)

From CBNNews:

This afternoon, Barack Obama’s campaign will announce the formation of what they are calling their, “National Catholic Advisory Council.” More details to come on an afternoon conference call but Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer will be on that conference call.

A couple interesting notes: First of all, this Catholic Council seems to be set up not so much for the Democratic primary as it is for the General Election. Why? Obama has two high profile pro-lifers in prominent roles on this Council. Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer have taken flack from the Democratic Party in the past because they are not pro-choice. The Obama campaign is clearly trying to send a message. This is an “in your face” signal to voters of faith that Obama is a different kind of Democrat. They want Catholics and Evangelicals to know that while Obama may be pro-choice, the pro-life point of view is not going to be so easily discounted. Critics will call it deceptive. Supporters will call it an “olive branch”.

Also, let this be considered the opening salvo in the potential battle to come over faith voters. Obama will not concede this block. He’s not going to get the single issue life or marriage voters but get ready for the Obama campaign to make a major push for the Evangelical vote. John McCain already had some work ahead of him on getting out the faith vote. If Obama is the nominee, it gets even harder. McCain and the Republican National Committee will need to figure out a way to cast Obama as an out of control liberal so he doesn’t pull a certain percentage of the Evangelical vote away from McCain. This will be a key battleground area and in a close election it could make all the difference in the World.

John McCain has already set up his Catholic Advisory Committee. It's more than one hundred strong. Below is a quote from the Senator who leads it, Sam Brownback:

"John McCain has a common sense vision for America based on faith, freedom, and families," said Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of the National Catholics for McCain Committee. "Committed to the protection of innocent human life, he is a leader Catholics will be proud to support. John McCain knows from experience what it means when a society tramples on the truth of the value of the human person. He is committed to defending the dignity and value of every person, regardless of their status."

More here.

(emphasis added)

Here's more on the story from LifeNews.com.

Sen. Brownback Endorses McCain for President

Here is the N.Y. Times link and an excerpt:

Mr. McCain was greeted by about 150 supporters at the Dubuque airport when he landed in Iowa on Wednesday evening, including Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a former candidate whose endorsement lent him a boost among evangelical Christians in the state.

N.Y. Times, 1/3/08.

Who is Republican Kansas Senator Brownback? He is a Catholic who converted from evangelical Protestantism. He is very pro-life and pro-marriage. Brownback's own personal journey to Catholicism from a bout with cancer is quite impressive. My first choice for President in 2008 was Brownback, but he has since dropped out of the race. My personal choice now is McCain. Here is a link to past Catholic Analysis posts mentioning Brownback that give you the background to understand the significance for us Catholics of Brownback's endorsement of McCain for President in 2008.

Senator Brownback: "A Changed Stem Cell Debate"

A Changed Stem Cell Debate - Sam Brownback (First Things' On The Square. Dec. 12, 2007) -- on the implications of the recent scientific breakthroughs involving "pluripotent" stem cells:

This shifts the debate fundamentally. Those who had moral reservations about research on the youngest of humans but were persuaded of the need to pursue treatments can now support this promising research without compromising their pro-life conviction. At the same time, those who claimed that embryonic research was the only promising way forward can unite around a promising new technique that presents no ethical dilemmas.

What the vast majority of Americans want is now possible: the pursuit of promising research that does not cross ethical lines, honors human dignity, and preserves innocent life.

This does not mark the end of the stem cell debate. In the coming weeks, I will work with my Senate colleagues on possible ways to allocate funding for this approach and for other research that seeks ethical cures we can be proud of. I will continue to push for a ban on all forms of human cloning, a practice that demeans the dignity of the human person.

The irony is that opponents of embryonic stem cell research were considered to be anti-science or behind the times. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research were thought to be in a long line of pioneers fighting the restraints of religious doctrine to push forward with scientific research.

Instead, quite the opposite is the case. The new research shows that science and morality need not be pitted against each another. Still less, the promise of cures for disease need not be pitted against the infinite value of the youngest of human lives.

Rather, what we knew in our hearts all along has turned out to be true. The strong ought to protect the weak and science is not to be feared, nor is it to be worshiped, but rather it should be regulated by sound ethical guidelines. In doing so, science has shown the path forward: ethical research, promising science, and cures everyone can live with.

Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani

A topic that seems to be on many a Catholic mind this week is the potential emergence of Rudy Giuliani as the GOP presidential candidate in 2008. A self-proclaimed "pro-choice, pro-gay rights" Catholic, conservative voters are finding themselves faced with the moral equivalent to Senator Kerry (also a self-proclaimed "pro-choice" Catholic) on their side of the political isle.

Fr. Pavone on the Permissability of "Voting for the Better of Two Bad Candidates"

Last month, Michae Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) noted his disapproval of Fr. Frank Pavone's response to the question of what to do when the two major parties’ candidates are pro-choice, but a third party candidate is anti-abortion?? (More “Republicatholic” hypocrisy, courtesy of Frank Pavone May 13, 2007) -- In response to which, Fr. Pavone maintains that Catholics must distinguish between "choosing evil" and "limiting evil":

. . . just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that's the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not "choosing the lesser of two evils." We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good. . . . by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

Michael omits from his post the fact that Fr. Pavone was taking a cue from Cardinal John O'Connor (no slouch on the pro-life front, he). Pavone continues, citing from the Cardinal himself:

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem,

“Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

Michael Iafrate's reaction to Pavone is to brand him a hypocrite, although he has not actually established this to be the case. In fact, Fr. Pavone has held this same position (with respect to voting when faced with two leading "bad' candidates) back in 2000:

“Because voting is not a canonization,” he continued, “we may morally vote for a less perfect candidate who is actually electable at the present moment, rather than a better candidate who does not have the base of support to actually get into office. Our vote is our way of participating in actually moving our society forward, rather than a forum for ‘making statements.’ Statements can be made in a thousand other ways. But there is only one way to elect people to offices in which they can make a difference.”

I believe Fr. Pavone makes an important observation here about the viability of a given candidate -- a principled vote for the 'better' third party candidate with no political viability will result in the election of one or another candidate (and party) who will set the agenda and policies for the country. Last month I had devoted a post to exploring this very decision ("To Vote or Not to Vote?" Catholics in the Public Square April 21, 2007) and the ramifications of voting for a candidate with no realistic chance of success or even abstaining from voting altogether.

Moving on, Michael Iafrate's assertion that Catholic Answers teaches that "Catholics are obligated to vote for pro-life/anti-abortion candidates (typically Republicans) and may not vote for pro-choice/pro-abortion candidates (typically Democrats)" is not exactly true. A look at Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholics reveals an answer that is very much along the lines of Fr. Pavone's and Cardinal O'Connor's:

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.

Senator Brownback - Consistently Pro-Life or Sell-Out?

In the third debate among GOP candidates, Wolf Blitzer posed the question to Senator Sam Brownback of whether he would be able to vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate. Here is the exchange in full:

SEN. BROWNBACK: [...] I am pro-life and I’m whole life. And one of the things I’m the most, the proudest about our party about is that we’ve stood for life. We’ve been a party that has stood for a culture of life, and it was in our platform in 1980 and it continues today.

And with that respect — and I have respect for my other colleagues — that’s why I don’t think we can nominate somebody that’s not pro-life in this party because it is at our core. We believe that every life is beautiful, is sacred, is a child of a loving God, from natural — from conception to natural death, and that applies not only here and in the womb, it applies to somebody that’s in poverty, it applies to the child in Darfur.

And that philosophy, being pro-life and whole life, is something I think can really help move us forward as a country and as a party.

MR. BLITZER: Senator, if Rudy Giuliani got the Republican presidential nomination, would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I — that question came up at the first debate, and I stated that this is something that we as a party have struggled with. I have great respect for the mayor. I don’t think we’re going to nominate somebody that’s not pro-life.

MR. BLITZER: Would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I can support and will support the nominee of our party, but our party has stood on principles. It’s a party of principles, it’s not a party of personalities.

Michael Joseph of Vox Nova / Evangelica-Catholicism expressed his disapproval of Senator Sam Brownback, characterizing the Senator's response as a compromise of his moral principles, at the same time asserting that the "more Catholic and more democratic action" would be to vote for a third-party candidate (Brownback Backpedals Vox Nova June 6, 2007):

. . . All of Fr. Pavone's talk about ending abortion definitively in America by consolidating the pro-life vote ends here. He introduces a manufactured category to the matter: "realistic choice." So as a Catholic, I do not need to vote pro-life as long as that vote goes toward a "realistic" candidate? Is "realistic" an emergency moral category whose glass is broken in the event that a Republican nominee for president is pro-choice? "Realistic" releases me from any moral obligation to vote pro-life? I should not feel compelled to find a pro-life third-party candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience? I should not do the more Catholic and the more democratic action of voting for a third-party? I should allow practical politics to trump pro-life principles? Why, then, can I not just vote for a "realistic" pro-choice candidate anytime, even if there is a "realistic" pro-life candidate in the race?

Fr. Pavone exacerbates his double-talk by suggesting that a pro-choice candidate could be an "acceptable" candidate. If both candidates are pro-choice, one may be more "acceptable" than the other. Really, Fr. Pavone? And how so? Is there another behemoth non-negotiable issue that can overshadow a candidate's public desire to protect right to the murder the unborn? Perhaps socialized medicine? Perhaps tax-cuts? Perhaps immigration reform?

In "Worthiness to Receive Communion, General Principles", Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

(Cardinal Ratzinger's position -- not to be distinguished with proportionalism -- is explored and defended by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin: What Ratzinger Said Sept. 9, 2004). I think that the collective voice of Vox Nova are rather too hasty in their rush to castigate Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone as hypocrites guilty of "pro-life backpedalling" whose only desire is that Catholics vote Republican. Based on a closer analysis of Brownback and Pavone's own words and stated reasoning, this is simply not the case.

Steve Dillard and Catholics Against Rudy

Responding to an piece on Catholics Against Rudy on Vox Nova this week (Catholics Against Rudy: All the Way?, by Michael Joseph Vox Nova June 12, 2007), Steve Dillard conveys the position of his organization Catholics Against Rudy (formally launching in July 2007):

(1) My comment that, "You cannot, in good conscience as a faithful Catholic, vote for Rudy Giuliani," is limited to the GOP presidential primary. . . . I certainly believe that there would be "proportionate reasons" to vote for Mayor Giuliani in the general election against a pro-abortion democratic candidate (e.g., Clinton).

(2) Yes, if Giuliani "were to earn the Republican nomination," which I agree is "a very likely scenario," Catholics Against Rudy will "continue its campaign beyond the Republican primaries" That having been said, for the reasons noted above, our arguments against his candidacy will have to shift gears a bit. While there clearly are not "proportionate reasons" that would permit a Catholic to vote for Giuliani in the GOP primary, the same cannot be said for the general election, and, as such, our arguments will shift from the theological to the prudential (e.g., that Catholics should not vote for Giuliani because of the long-term harm that would result from having a pro-abortion leader as the head of the only pro-life political party).

(3) For all of the reasons noted above, Catholics Against Rudy "will . . . make good on its campaign and advise Catholics to choose a pro-life third-party candidate," while at the same time respecting those Catholics who, for other prudential reasons (e.g., supreme-court vacancies), elect to choose the lesser of two evils.

Before I go on, I would like to publicly commend Steve Dillard for his patience and Christian charity, having been the recipient of a great deal of verbal abuse and unjust accusations in Vox Nova's combox. The accusation that Catholics Against Rudy would be an organization "utterly beholden to the Republican Party" is unjustifiable and patently ridiculous on its face. Thanks to Michael Joseph for displaying the courtesy of amending his post.

In Conclusion

Like Senator Brownback, I hope and pray it will never come to pass that Giuliani will be the GOP presidential nominee. Unfortunately, I fear that Brownback is far more optimistic about the integrity and conviction of the Republican Party than I at this time. While the Giuliani campaign has been met with increasing opposition among conservative Catholics, the amount of attention bestowed upon him by other Republicans is disconcerting, not to mention what one would describe as fawning adulation from the likes of FoxNews pundit Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry of the National Review (in what Jay Anderson appropriately described as a "Rudygasm").

A conscientious vote for Giuliani against, say, Hillary or Obama is perhaps defensible from a Catholic point of view (or at least not prohibited). I honestly can't predict my decision come November 2008. For the moment, I think it is clear that we as Catholics should collectively put our effort into opposing the nomination of Rudy Giuliani -- not only for the sake of accurately presenting Catholic teaching in the public square, but for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Republican party in future elections.

The Republican Party has recognized in its platform that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." Would it be worth it to elect a "pro-choice" politician at the cost of sacrificing or making a mockery of that very position? Would it not be a slippery slope, in fact "widening the Republican tent" to allow for the election of more "pro-choice" politicians in the future? -- The Democrats have worn the "pro-choice" mantle for decades. Let's curb this headlong rush to join them.

* * *

This post is written in the attempt to work out my thoughts on the issue and a clarification of the positions of Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone; I welcome the feedback of my colleagues and readers and their reactions. Let the discussion begin.

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. -- President Ronald Reagan Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation

General Reading

• Anti-Rudy Catholics Plan Their Assault, by Rebecca Sinderbrand. New York Observer May 27, 2007.
  
• The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership, by Robert P. George and William L. Saunders. Crisis 18 no. 4 (April 2000): 17-22.
  

Responses to This Post

• Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia June 13, 2007).
  
• Response from Morning's Minion [see also: "Can Catholics Vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians?", by Morning's Minion. Vox Nova May 23, 2007].
  
• Does Voting for Giuliani Make You a Pro-Life Fraud?, by Michael Denton. For the Greater Glory June 13, 2007.
  

Norma McCorvey aka "Jane Roe" Endorses Brownback for President

From the Brownback Campaign blog May 23, 2007:

DES MOINES, Ia –U.S. Senator Sam Brownback announced today that he has enlisted the support of Norma McCorvey, the now pro-life “Jane Roe” of the infamous Roe v Wade decision, for his presidential campaign. . . .

Senator Brownback is deeply honored to have earned Norma McCorvey’s endorsement. “Norma McCorvey knows firsthand the darkness of the abortion industry – its danger to both unborn children and their mothers. Her experience as the poster child for the abortion movement exponentially increases the power of her pro-life testimony. I stand with her in her quest to overturn Roe v Wade,” Brownback said.

Norma McCorvey said, “I know the hurts of countless women who have been lied to and manipulated by the abortion industry in this country. Our nation needs a President of strength, courage, and moral fortitude – one who will lead our society on a path that respects human life and human dignity. Senator Sam Brownback’s love for all Americans at every stage of development is unquestioned, and his leadership of the pro-life movement if unrivaled. Sam Brownback is the right person, in the right place, at the right time for our nation as we seek to embrace a culture of life.”

Brownback "Pro-Torture"?

Is Sam Brownback pro-torture? May 18, 2007. (Via Jay @ Pro Ecclesia).

Update Jay Anderson and Publius have further noted (and Brownback's campaign blog contends as well), Brownback actually did not specifically endorse the use of torture during the debate, and his remarks (in response to another question) were taken out of context.

In the meantime, Jay has published issued a request for clarification to the Brownback campaign on this issue, and invites others to do so as well.

In the meantime, methinks grandiouse proclamations like "the entire field of GOP Candidates and most of the Allegedly Conservative Punditocracy favors [torture]!" brings more heat than light to the discussion, and Mark Shea (Catholic and Enjoying It) should give Brownback the benefit of the doubt.

On Brownback's (and other Catholic legislators) voting records on any number of issues (including torture), see David Schrader's Catholics in [109th] Congress (Special Report).

National Catholic Reporter Profiles Sen. Brownback

National Catholic Reporter: Conscience, ambition of candidate – Convert Brownback tries to convince electorate Catholic ethos a winner, By Joe Feuerherd. National Catholic Reporter:

Sam Brownback, the two-term conservative Kansas senator and recent Catholic convert who wants to be president, is unconventional enough to be interesting, senior enough to be considered seriously, and substantive enough to have a message that could resonate in the Iowa presidential caucuses.

But beyond the challenges of name recognition, fundraising and organization – no small hurdles even for the so-called top-tier candidates in the Republican field – Brownback’s got a bigger problem, one that he readily pinpoints: he is trying to convince the electorate that a social conservative, shaped and tempered by a decidedly Catholic ethos, can be a political winner. . . .

Sen. Sam Brownback for President

A lot is at stake. But now is the time to go for broke and vote with our hearts. Here is a link to a good analysis of Sen. Sam Brownback from Kansas, a genuine Catholic on the life issues who is also a genuine Catholic on other issues of social justice. He doesn't fit the unfair stereotype of the conservative Catholic oblivious to the poor. The primaries are the time to vote with your heart. In the general election, we can all unite against Hillary Clinton. By the way, you can vote your preference in the Pajamas Media Presidential Straw Poll in the side margin of my Catholic Analysis blog and, I am sure, at other websites.

Brownback on "Fundamental Kindness"

. . . Fundamental kindness and goodness is the thread that runs through any subject on which Brownback is asked to elaborate.

Acknowledging that he is strongly pro-life, Brownback stresses that Americans need to see each other in a more “human” way in all settings.

“Not just for the child in the womb ... but for the person in prison ... for the child in Darfur. I just don’t think we’re looking at each other as precious enough,” he said in an interview. “I know this may seem to be an abstract concept (but extends to) the way you look at the guy in the coffee shop, or in McDonald’s.

“Do you look through him just to get your cup of coffee, or do you look at him and see him?” he asked. “I think it’s a real problem for us.”

-- Presidential candidate Brownback visits Naples, by I.M. Stackel. NaplesNews.com. February 3, 2007. (Hat tip: Jay Anderson).

Anticipating the 2008 Presidential Race . . .

• Hillary's in the race (suprise, suprise). I would comment further, but Thomistic at Roman Catholic Blog has an excellent post.
  

• Fr. Pavone has officially joined Senator Brownback's presidential team. I agree with fellow editor Jay Anderson -- much as I like the idea of Brownback as a Catholic candidate, I'm not at all enthused about a Catholic priest taking such a formal position on his team. I'm more comfortable with members of our clergy providing the laity with a clear articulation of the Catholic principles which should govern our choice of candidates.
  

• On a related note, Closed Cafeteria reports that Father Michael Pfleger is stumping for pro-abort Sen. Obama, calling him "the best thing that has come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy."
  

It's only the beginning, folks.

Sen. Brownback Considers Bid for U.S. Presidency

Sen. Sam Brownback, who is considering a White House bid in 2008, said Monday the Republican field has room for a 'full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative' and pledged to make a final decision next month.

The Kansas senator said he was not discouraged from running by the Democrats' strong gains in this month's midterm elections, including majority control of the House and Senate.

'It does not make it less likely,' he said in an interview. 'I really believe that the basic conservative ideas and ideals were not repudiated. Our execution was.' . . .

'I think there's room for a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative in the field,' Brownback said. 'I fully agree that other people have much higher name identification than I do. No question about that. But I think what you have to look at is the policy positions they get out once you have an effective campaign.'

Brownback, who was elected in 1996, is a forceful foe of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. He also has taken a prominent role in the fight against genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Source: Kansas Republican Eyes Presidential Bid, by Sam Hananel. Associated Press. (Via RedState.

More Brownback info from Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia

U.S. News Q&A with Senator Sam Brownback

Q&A with Sen. Sam Brownback, by Dan Gilgoff. U.S. News & World Report August 17, 2006:

Sen. Sam Brownback is widely regarded as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, a label he lived up to recently in vigorously opposing Congress's attempts to provide funding for expanded embryonic stem cell research. But the Kansas Republican has made common cause with liberals by drawing attention to the genocide in Darfur and irked some conservatives by championing comprehensive immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. As he mulls over a presidential bid-he says he'll make the decision soon after the midterm elections-Brownback sat down with U.S. News for a wide-ranging interview. . . .

Brownback Introduces Bill to Fight Assisted Suicide

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback yesterday introduced the Assisted Suicide Prevention Act, which would prohibit doctors from prescribing federally-controlled substances for the purpose of physician-assisted suicide.

“When the law permits killing as a medical ‘treatment,’ society’s moral guidelines are blurred, and killing could gain acceptance as a solution for the chronically ill or vulnerable,” said Brownback. “Doctor-assisted suicide could actually create a financial incentive for insurance companies to encourage prematurely ending the lives of those in need of long-term care.”

Last May Brownback chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing to examine the impact of physician-assisted suicide in places where it has been widely practiced. . . .[read more]

Brownback Introduces Bill to Fight Assisted Suicide LifeSiteNews.com. August 4, 2006.

For more on Senator Brownback, see Catholics for Brownback.

Washington Post profiles Sen. Sam Brownback

Faith-Based Initiative: Presidential Hopeful Sam Brownback Strives to Be Humble Enough for a Higher Power, by Libby Copeland. Washington Post June 7, 2006.

Via The Anchoress, who blogs her thoughts on a Brownback presidential campaign.

"The Wilberforce Republican"

That's the tag that the prestigious Economist magazine applies to Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (see link; unfortunately accessing the entire column requires a subscription, but you can probably find the March 11th issue of The Economist magazine at your local library). I have written about Brownback before in Catholic Analysis. He is my personal favorite for President in 2008. The magazine column's description tells you why: Brownback is "strongly opposed to both gay marriage and abortion." He campaigns on the " 'three Rs'--reduce (the size of government), reform (Congress) and return (to traditional values)."

What is most intriguing is his personal background:

Mr. Brownback's politics is rooted in his religious faith. He was raised an evangelical Protestant . . . . But a few years ago a brush with cancer changed his life, persuading him to put religion at the forefront of his political persona. He was particularly moved by reading a biography of William Wilberforce, a British anti-slavery agitator [of the ninteenth century]. He also became a Roman Catholic. He now attends two services every Sunday--mass and also one with his family, who remain evangelical Protestants.

The Economist, March 11, 2006, p. 30 ("Lexington" column).

Anyone who saw Brownback aggressively question Roe v. Wade during the televised Supreme Court confirmation hearings knows that he is highly intelligent and articulate. He is poised and in command of the facts. In addition, he does not fit the biased stereotype of the Christian right that the mainstream media loves. The magazine column describes the difference. Brownback is quite concerned with human rights abuses and poverty overseas, whether in North Korea or the Sudan, whether involving fighting HIV or fighting sex trafficking. He is concerned with prison reform here at home. He is one of the sponsors of a new African-American history museum to be built in D.C. and "now wants an apology for Native Americans." That's enough to make the liberal media spin in dread because Brownback is more than a match for anyone else on the political scene. Most of all, the American people will like him. Compare all of that with the power-obsessed, pessimism of the stalwarts of the Democratic Party; and it's easy to see which type of politician is more appealing now and in 2008.

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was a British politician who also had a conversion experience as an adult. He was an evangelical Protestant social reformer whose efforts were crucial in the elimination of slavery in the British Empire one month after his death in 1833 (see Encyclopedia Americana under "Wilberforce"). Like Wilberforce, Brownback is a leading force in dismantling the Culture of Death. For Wilberforce, the Culture of Death was exemplified by the dehumanization of legal slavery. For Brownback, the Culture of Death in its current form is found most blatantly in the dehumanization of legal abortion. One remained an evangelical Protestant, the other became an evangelical Catholic. Both are what history needed at a crucial moment.

Rolling Stone Magazine Attacks Senator Brownback, Writer Admits Error

From Culture of Life (Culture & Cosmos):

One of the most egregious errors in the article resulted in Sharlet publicly admitting his mistake. Sharlet wrote, "[Brownback] shakes his head in sorrow, thinking of Sweden, which Christian conservatives believe has been made by 'social engineering' into an outer ring of hell. 'You'll know 'em by their fruits,' Brownback says. He pauses, and an awkward silence fills the room. He was citing scripture -- Matthew 7:16 -- but he just called gay Swedes 'fruits.'" Sharlet later admitted on his blog that this characterization was wrong after the homosexual activist group, the Human Rights Campaign, sent a letter to Brownback demanding an apology. Sharlet explained to an HRC spokesman that Brownback had not used the term fruit to describe homosexuals and they withdrew their demand. On his blog he wrote, "Brownback did not mean to make a joke, nor did he mean to use 'fruits' as a slur. I didn't think he did, nor did I mean to imply that. But I was laughing at the senator."

Sen Brownback in Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone profiled Senator Sam Brownback recently. I mentioned it on the Catholics for Brownback blog yesterday.

Nathan over at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis has a post on some of the senator's remarks in the piece. He asked us to respond. I left my comments.