Further consideration of the Statement of the 26

 

Mirror of Justice contributors and readers will recall some recent exchanges on this site concerning the statement of 26 Catholic leaders, theologians, and scholars (hereinafter “the 26”). After taking some considerable time reflect on the words of their statement, I have reached a conclusion that the statement misrepresents Governor Sebelius’s record and should not be relied upon by the Catholic faithful in forming their views concerning the Governor’s fidelity to her faith. While I may not fall into the enviable ranks of being a leader, scholar, or theologian, I am a Catholic who works diligently at discerning what the Church asks of me and all who claim to be her faithful members.

 

In that context, I make the same claim as the 26 that I am, or strive to be, a faithful Catholic, but unlike the 26 I cannot offer support to the governor’s nomination to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. I have no reason at this time to doubt the assertion of the 26 that the governor is “a woman of deep faith” [but as the 26 note, she does have issues with the Church’s leadership] who participates in “a proud family history of public service.” I am skeptical about the claim posed by the 26 that the governor is responsible for “significantly reducing the abortion rate in Kansas.” In expressing my skepticism, I am not using the governor’s faith or my faith to attack anyone, and this is not to say that by critiquing the governor’s stance on abortion-related public policy issues I am being “partisan” or “divisive.” As a Catholic I understand what the Church teaches regarding the role of Catholics, in general, and Catholic public officials, in particular, when addressing the legal status of abortion. As both Pope John Paul II noted in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (N. 73) and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained in its 2002 Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life (N. 4), “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.” It might be argued by some that the governor has followed this instruction, but in order to assess this claim it is essential to take further stock of what action she has pursued regarding proposed legislation that addresses abortion. I shall come back to this point in a moment.

 

But here it is important to acknowledge what the 26 cite as important accomplishments on other fronts and to respond objectively and fairly to these other assertions. The first is that the governor “signed” a bill which funds “support services for pregnant women and alternatives to abortion.” The initial legislation establishing this program was enacted in 2000 prior to Kathleen Sebelius becoming governor. In 2004, she did take negative action on this program by exercising her line item veto on May 24, 2004 to eliminate in its entirety the state’s funding for the Pregnancy Maintenance Initiative (PMI) as this proposal was then called. It is true that on April 15, 2005 she signed HB 2301, the Stan Clark Pregnancy Maintenance Act, which was named in honor of the recently killed state legislator who had tried unsuccessfully to override the governor’s 2004 veto of the PMI; however the amount of the funding was less than before. But, on the same day, April 15, 2005, she also vetoed HB 2503 which attempted to establish medical standards in abortion clinics. In her veto, she stated,

 

“Once again in 2005, the Legislature has chosen pure politics over good policy, has rejected uniform standards for all procedures, and has instead chosen to regulate only one procedure—abortion. As the number of outpatient surgeries grow rapidly in Kansas and throughout the country, it is wise to update our regulatory oversight to ensure the best possible treatment for all patients. Unfortunately, HB 2503 falls far short of meeting this basic standard of care. I have stated repeatedly that I will sign this law when it includes all surgical procedures and all surgical centers to ensure the safety of all Kansans. For these reasons, I veto HB 2503. I strongly urge the Legislature, upon its return, to endorse the appropriate clinic standards that the Board of Healing Arts is currently putting into place. We should encourage physicians and other health care professionals to work through the Board of Healing Arts for the speedy development of standards that apply to all surgical clinics and protect the health of every patient. There is no justifiable reason to do less.”

 

But, in fact, there was a justifiable reason for this in that lax or few standards were being followed in some abortion clinics unlike other medical facilities that did not perform abortions. The last word to date concerning the PMI program is that Governor Sebelius has eliminated the Stan Clark PMI program from the 2010 budget (see pages 94 and 280 of the January 12, 2009 FYI budget, HERE.

 

While it is correct as the 26 state that the governor signed, without comment, Alexa’s Law, which recognizes the murder or injury of an unborn child as a crime, we must recognize that Kathleen Sebelius has expressed particular personal views on the status of nascent human life in the womb. Here is what Representative Kathleen Sebelius said in 1989 on this subject:

 

 

 

As St. Ignatius reminds us, it is proper to put the best interpretation on what the other person does or says until contrary evidence is provided. So, keeping in mind his wisdom, I could assume that as Governor, Kathleen Sebelius might have regard for the protection of nascent human life; however, as a state representative, it is clear that when she specifically addressed the issue, her view was to the contrary. If she has indeed changed the position she held when she served as a state representative, I would heartily welcome the abandonment of her previous view.

 

The 26 have stated clearly that the governor “has had disagreements over public policy with leaders in her Church. Yet their disagreement has never been over the morality of abortion, but over what prudential policy is best in dealing with abortion in Kansas.” But is this in fact the case when we look at her gubernatorial veto of several pieces of legislation designed to protect fetal life or to regulate abortion providers?

Here it is best to let her record speak for itself. I have already addressed her 2005 veto of legislation geared to regulating the standards of abortion clinics. On May 19, 2006, she vetoed other legislation, SB 528, which was designed to regulate late term abortions of viable fetuses, to collect statistical information about these procedures, and to have physicians elaborate on their findings about late term abortions that were conducted under the “mental health” exception. The bill was also designed to ascertain if disabled women were being targeted for abortion because some abortion proponents view them as being unsuitable parents. The bill was also designed to ensure that physicians performing abortions had to comply with the steps of caring for a child who survived the abortion, i.e., a “born alive infant”. In her veto message, the governor asserted that her “Catholic faith teaches me that life is sacred. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong.” In her view, SB 528 would “do nothing to reduce abortion in Kansas. Instead, it will force women to provide intimate, sensitive health information to the government. Privacy is a fundamental concern to all Kansans.” Indeed, privacy is important, but protecting human life is far more important.

 

In the Omnibus Budget Bill signed into law on May 21, 2007, the governor line item vetoed the funding for the Kansas Department of Health appropriation for the reporting of performed abortions. In her view, this vetoed provision would violate the “medical privacy” of patients. As she said, “All Kansans also want our laws upheld, including laws protecting the privacy of our personal medical records.” Again, privacy is important, but protecting human life is far more important.

 

On April 21, 2008, the governor vetoed SB 389, the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, which would have strengthened restrictions on, but not eliminated, late term abortions; the bill was also designed to prevent “coerced abortions” especially involving mothers who are minors. The legislation would have further required officials to collect information regarding the medical justifications given for late term abortions; moreover, it had a provision for enabling families to bring civil suits against abortion providers planning late term abortions against a member of that family if the late term abortion violated Kansas law. But in her veto, she said,

 

“Kansans are proud of the progress we’ve made lowering the abortion rate and lifting our economy.  It’s time for legislators to recognize that progress and focus on the things that continue to move us forward. I am concerned about a number of provisions in SB 389. The United States Supreme Court decisions make clear that any law regulating abortion must contain exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. [Araujo: And the bill allows for this] However, SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life. I am concerned that the bill is likely unconstitutional or even worse, endangers the lives of women. The bill contains unprecedented expansions of legal proceedings which would likely encourage extensive litigation and also unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women’s confidential medical records. As Governor, nothing is more important to me than the safety, health and privacy rights of our citizens. I am vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the health of women and is likely to be found in violation the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas.”

 

In her message, she did not comment on the effect her veto would have on the health and safety of the unborn.

 

I find that the governor’s record on doing what the faithful Catholic should do regarding “limiting the harm done by” abortion laws and at “lessening [their] negative consequences” to be insufficient given the present evidence contained in her several substantive or budgetary vetoes over the past several years. Therefore I find it impossible to share the sentiments of the 26 regarding her fidelity to what the Church asks of her as a public official.

 

While the question of marriage has not been a part of the discussion regarding the governor’s nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, it is relevant to point out that while she has so far expressed her resistance to same-sex marriage, she also opposed the April 2005 Constitutional amendment enacted in Kansas defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While she did not actively campaign on the measure, she nevertheless expressed the view that existing state law was sufficient to preserve marriage rights. As she said, “I don’t think we need a constitutional amendment, and particularly a constitutional amendment that goes far beyond the bounds of that law.” Of course it would be prudent for her to take account of other states which also have statutory laws but no constitutional provisions defining marriage; some of them are facing or have faced legal challenges to statutory laws that were not reflected in constitutional provisions.

 

It is time to bring this post to a conclusion—and the conclusion here is that the 26 have failed to convince me that Governor Sebelius’s public service record on abortion questions demonstrates that she, as a public official, is faithful to what the Church asks of her on this critical issue.

 

RJA sj