The exchange which Michael P. very incompletely reports was an e-mail exchange between myself and a law professor who is a regular reader of MOJ – a person who has asked to remain anonymous. The reader began the exchange by claiming that my “posting of pictures of Sebelius and Tiller is very misleading.” She continues:
Tiller won the reception after bidding the most for it at a silent auction sponsored by the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Sebelius donated her time to help the caucus raise money, something she said she had done before. The silent auction was part of the group's annual Torch Dinner. Sebelius had no control over who won the auction or who attended. She didn't even pay for the reception that was paid for by the Women's Political Caucus.
How the reader comes by these alleged facts (i.e. that the reception was an auction item that the Governor agreed to donate to the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus’ Torch Dinner silent auction, and that the Governor did not pay for the reception) is not clear since she cites no source by which one could verify her assertions. Still, that a political fund-raising auction item was the origin of the event seems plausible enough. At the same time, the reader’s claim that Sebelius did not pay for the reception is open to serious question since the photographs of the receipts for the reception (available via the link in my original post) would suggest otherwise – a point I raised in my e-mail response. I would add that, in my experience (and I suspect the experience of most people), those who donate items for fund-raising auctions actually donate something. If the item is a dinner or a cocktail reception, the donor supplies the food and drink, not the person who purchases the item or the auction sponsor.
Ultimately, however, whether Sebelius paid for the event personally or her office paid for it, or it was paid for by the auction winner or the auction sponsor is beside the point. The point is that a person is known by the company she keeps, and the company Gov. Sebelius keeps happens to include a notorious late-term abortionist – someone who, as Michael Scaperlanda notes, has given money to Sebelius directly and through his PAC. While a public figure may not agree with every opinion or form of conduct of every individual with whom he or she is photographed, Tiller and his work are a known quantity. Sebelius and Tiller aren’t strangers to one another. She knows what Tiller does and she has done nothing over the years to disassociate herself from the man and his work. Indeed, she has adamantly supported the very policies Tiller has sought to have enshrined in law.
The reader, however, seems to think that Sebelius is a victim of happenstance and contract law. For her, Sebelius had no hand in the fact that Tiller ended up at the Governor’s Mansion sipping cocktails. According to the reader:
[Sebelius] was obliged to attend the event since she donated "hosting a reception" as a service to be auctioned off by the Women's Political Caucus. Once a donation is made it is usually irrevocable and donees don't get to impose conditions after the donation has been made. Tiller and the Women's Political Caucus relied on her promise to deliver the promised service and could have sued her for specific performance or damages if she failed to perform. The implication of your post is that SHE PICKED Tiller and his staff to be her guests and that by choosing them as guests she was endorsing their activities which isn't consistent with the facts.
I find it difficult to believe that a politician could not politely excuse herself from such a personal appearance if she found the company politically unacceptable. In an e-mail, I wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, if the KKK had the winning bid at the silent auction (or, I suppose more correctly, given the sponsor, the Women's Auxiliary of the KKK) she would have been contractually obligated to attend? -- and hand out hugs and pose for pictures? -- or were they a bonus that she begrudgingly bestowed upon the highest bidder? Do you mean to suggest that she could not have gracefully bowed out of attending the function at the Governor's Mansion and still permitted use of the facilities, the way that politicians do at events like this everyday?
For the reader, however, contract law wins out over all:
Tiller could have refused to pay the amount he bid for a reception hosted by Sebelius if she refused to show up and that the Women's Political Caucus could have sued her for the loss of these funds. Her presence was the key part of the donation on which he was bidding. He wasn't bidding for a reception at the governor's mansion but a reception with the governor. As I noted before, donors like Sebelius can't put conditions on a donation after it has been given.
In her desire to exonerate Sebelius from the radical pro-choice record she has amassed and the relationships that have accompanied this record, the reader fails to see how Sebelius did in effect “put conditions” on the auction item she purportedly donated. Indeed, she fails to see how Sebelius did have a hand in selecting the individuals who would submit the winning bid and so attend the Governor’s Mansion reception.
The Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus only endorses political candidates who are “pro-choice.” Indeed, the “choice” issue is the only issue listed by name in the organization’s qualifications for endorsement. So, what Sebelius could be certain of is that – whoever aspired to be her guest at the Governor’s Mansion, whoever submitted the winning bid at the silent auction – that person or group would be “pro-choice.” Thus, although the reader claims that Gov. Sebelius “had no control over who won the auction or who attended,” Sebelius had substantial control who would win simply by agreeing to host an event on behalf of the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Notwithstanding the reader’s assertion to the contrary, in effect, Sebelius did “have control” over who would win the auction. In donating the reception to the organization she chose, Sebelius was assured that one “condition” would be satisfied, namely, that the winner would be committed to the abortion license. Thus, the basic premise upon which the reader’s entire argument is based is demonstrably false. If she (or Michael P.) has any reason to think otherwise I’d be delighted to hear what it is.
Finally, the supposition (which sometimes takes the form of an assertion) that runs throughout the reader’s e-mails is that Sebelius was somehow opposed to Tiller and the deadly work he performs in his clinics. For the reader, the smiles and good cheer evident in the photographs of the reception hide an aversion that Sebelius secretly holds for the work that Tiller performs. For the reader:
[t]he fact that [Sebelius] is acting civil towards Tiller and his associates in the pictures doesn't signify anything. Politicians frequently act polite to people that they loathe. Look at John McCain's courting of people like Falwell and Hagee from the Christian Right, whom he considered to be neither Christian nor right.
The problem with the reader’s comments here are threefold. First, Sebelius’ interaction with Tiller goes beyond mere civility – it is a relationship that predates her time as Governor. Second, it is not as if Sebelius must some how hold her nose while she stands next to a random group of strangers. On the contrary, these are allies with whom she shares a deep political affinity – the legal protection of abortion in its most extravagant form. Third, unlike John McCain’s rather swift denunciation of Rev. Hagee, Sebelius has done nothing to disassociate herself from Tiller.
I made this point in one portion of an e-mail I sent to the reader, a portion to which she never responded.
You say that Sebelius doesn't endorse Tiller's activities. What evidence do you have for this other than her vacuous and self-serving claim that she is "pro-life"? On the contrary there, is every indication that she supports precisely the kind of gruesome actions that take place at Tiller's clinic, if not as a moral matter certainly as a legal one -- a point convincingly demonstrated by Michael Scaperlanda's post. And as Secretary of HHS, a[n] official legal position, intimately connected to shaping the law, it is her legal views that matter most. Sadly, these views are nothing short of atrocious, and no amount of fabrication will make them otherwise. To ignore this and to attempt to spin the facts so as to characterize Sebelius as genuinely pro-life is what is truly misleading.
I have received several emails since posting Sebelius, the Group of 26, and Orwell’s America yesterday.About half were extremely positive and appreciative.The other half, including one from an MOJ blogger and another from one member of the Group of 26, were, shall we say, distinctively less positive.And, I must say that I am extremely frustrated in the level of discourse (and lack of argument) by those who disliked my post.One responder simply said that my post “disgusted” him.Another suggested that I must have been motivated by anger/outrage “to cross the line by accusing [the Group of 26] of wanting to turn the pro-life movement into a pro-abortion-rights movement – and as much as saying that they are lying (about Sebelius) in their effort to do so.”Another said, “I am not likely to be swayed by the evaluation of one of the most unenlightened and thoroughly unpastoral bishops I have ever encountered.”That person also said that I was full of “judgmental crap offered from the Olympus of moral certitude.”
What is missing from all of these emails is even the attempt at refuting my (and Archbishop Naumann’s) accusations.In short, name calling substitutes for reasoned argument in these emails.
I accuse the Group of 26 of engaging in making a material misrepresentation (the less polite word is, as one reader pointed out, “lying”).The material misrepresentation is partly by omission – the Group of 26 tells us how Sebelius is good at reducing abortion but they fail to tell us about her opposition to even modest abortion regulations.The Archbishop goes further, suggesting, I think accurately, that the Group of 26 is engaged in an affirmative misrepresentation when they claim that "She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief."If I am wrong in my judgment – if I am wrong in my accusation, please let me know.If you disagree with my assessment, please resist the temptation to resort to name calling and resort to good old fashioned argument instead.
I also accuse the Group of 26 of engaging in preemptive name calling by accusing her opponents of demagoguery.They say “we also reject the tactics of those who would use Gov. Sebelius’ faith to attack her. As Catholics, we find such partisan use of our religion regrettable and divisive.”This is a very convenient rhetorical strategy, which dismisses an opponents arguments before they can even be presented.If I am wrong in my judgment – if I am wrong in my accusation, please let me know.If you disagree with my assessment, please resist the temptation to resort to name calling and resort to good old fashioned argument instead.
"[In] Michael S.'s most recent posting on the Greater Kansas City Women's
Political Causus, he mischaracterizes the organization. Gov. Sebelius was
supporting an organization whose primary purpose is to support candidates that
advance women's rights and opportunities. The following is taken directly from
the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus:
'The purpose of the organization is:
To support candidates, female or male, who support public policies that
advance women's rights and opportunities and who will employ women in
decision-making roles in their campaigns and on their office staffs; and
To educate women for fuller participation in the political system;
To encourage women whose actions are consistent with the furtherance of
women's rights to seek elective and appointive positions at all levels of
government
To promote laws that ensure gender equality'
Being pro-choice is one of a long list of factors that that the Greater
Kansas City Women's Political Caucus uses to determine which candidates to
endorse but it is NOT the only one. Under Michael S.'s reasoning Gov. Sebelius
couldn't possibly be pro-life and still donate time to help the Democratic Party
raise funds because its platform endorses a pro-choice position. This reasoning
would reduce Catholics to single issue voters and would force Catholics into
either supporting the Republican Party or not voting at all. This is clearly
not the view espoused by the majority of the American bishops in Faithful
Citizenship.
By the way, being pro-choice is not the same thing as endorsing Dr.
Tiller's actions.
In fact, the t-shirt that Gov. Sebelius was holding listed three Democratic
candidates - her, Lt. Gov. Parkinson, and Atty Gen. Morrison. Morrison brought
Tiller up on 15 counts of violating Kansas's laws governing late term abortions
that require an independent second opinion from another doctor that the late
term abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Morrison resigned in
a political scandal under accusations of sexual harrassment. The Atty. General
that Gov. Sebelius appointed to replace Morrison has continued to prosecute Dr.
Tiller for 19 counts of violating Kansas's abortion laws. These are hardly the
actions of people who enthusiastically support Tiller's activities."
"I would like to thank you for your forthright discussion about the Sebelius Catholics at MOJ. I know it must not be easy having to be so blunt with your colleagues, but I agree with you and Archbishop Naumann that the actions of the Catholic United 26 have gone to an unprecedented level. Where they once made an argument for basically reluctant, proportionate voting strategy, they now are literally attempting to redefine what it means to live and act as a Catholic pro-lifer, so that it means living and acting like as a pro-abortion rights activist within the highest levels of the abortion industry. They are exceeding the Mario Cuomos of the past, who at least claimed that they were justified in parting with their faith beliefs. They are even different than the Maguires and Drinans, who admitted they were promoting a change in Church teaching. These academics wish to change what it means to be a Catholic pro-life citizen into the opposite of what the Church and all the bishops say it means, even to the point of vigorously protecting abortion practitioners themselves. And they seek the change while publicly claiming that it is not a change but that they actually represent the authentically Catholic pro-life view, so that their message will be more effective as cognitive interference to regular Catholics and propaganda of the worst kind. The stakes could not be higher, and your comparisons with Orwell are highly appropriate. When a Catholic Archbishop goes so far as to say these people are “very, very dishonest,” that is, they are lying, then criticism such as yours cannot be dismissed as mere blog incivility (as Kmiec and even some at MOJ will continue to do). Sebelius represents the polar opposite of “living and acting” the Catholic Church’s pro-life beliefs—any contrary claim is a lie. Your initial post inspired me to write on this topic, which I've published here."
Last week I expressed skepticism that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage can be justified based on the nature of the sexual act. A reader says "not so fast":
You stated that you "don't think the nature of the sexual act argument is convincing," but you did not say why. It seems to me that the arguments put forward by Nussbaum and others too quickly brush aside the biological reality that there is only one relationship - man and woman - that can produce children through sexual intercourse. The state's interest in marriage flows from the *unique* nature of this child-producing relationship between man and woman. As you noted in your post, the issue does boil down to the "nature of sexual union", but I think there is a meaningful and objective difference in the nature of the sexual union between a man and a woman who can produce a child through through sex that is formed from and naturally connected to both of them, and homosexual sexual relationships - whether between sisters or unrelated lesbians - that cannot produce children through sex. Disgust and religious sentiment are not really the drivers here - it's biology.
When this biological reality is not taken seriously, the case for gay marriage always focuses on utilitarian arguments about social good (as your argument did in the MOJ post). The problem with the utilitarian argument - to expand marriage to include gays because it is a social good - has no end point and marriage ends up encompassing more than just gay relationships. Lots of groupings of people can adopt and raise children, or make meaningful life-long commitments to each other (including elderly sisters and lesbians and polygamists). Marriage stops having any objetive basis and becomes whatever the social scientists determine is best. In the end, I think that will undermine marriage (and not because marriage will include gays, but because marriage will have no objective basis).
I don't reject this argument wholesale, but I'm not convinced that the categorical capacity to procreate is enough to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. At the same time, I agree that marriage cannot be a self-defined expression of personal fulfillment. (And I fear that's where we're headed if marriage becomes a religious relic and civil unions become the government default for everyone.) Marriage is inescapably public. I agree with Milton Regan that a "focus on the substantive ends promoted by marriage" is preferable "to an argument for legalization that rests on the claim that the state should defer to private ordering of intimate relationships." An argument based on substantive ends "acknowledges that intimate behavior is of moral interest to the community, but asks that the community engage in an act of empathetic imagination that provides the basis for respecting homosexuals and accepts them as full members."
If the categorical capacity to procreate is going to carry the weight of same-sex couples' exclusion, we will need to do more, in my estimation, than invoke the slippery slope. Marriage is not just a care-giving commitment; there is, or should be, a deeper sense of mutual self-giving at work. I do not have any problem distinguishing the sort of commitment between my married friends who are incapable of procreating and elderly roommates. There are political arguments to be made on this front. There is a huge social and personal cost to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and yes, that might make me an instrumentalist in my approach to marriage, but if we're concerned about the future of marriage, we can't turn a blind eye to its role and function, can we? And while I recognize that same-sex marriage changes the definition of marriage, I'm still not sure how opening marriage to same-sex couples meaningfully changes -- much less marginalizes -- marriage's role in society or its importance to the self-transcendent dimension of personal identity.
(Since I'm posting this on the day of the arguments in the California Supreme Court, let me add that our society's conversation about the nature of marriage should proceed through political channels; a judicially constructed definition of marriage will lead us down the path of marriage as private ordering, I fear.)
Here, thanks to Prof. Friedman's "Religion Clause" blog, is an update on the Ninth Circuit's decision regarding the Holy See's immunity (under the FSIA) in a clergy-abuse-related lawsuit.
The level of deceit by Catholics for Sebelius is breathtaking!
Michael P. has posted a response from a reader attempting to exonerate Gov. Sebelius from guilt by association with the abortionist Tiller. The reader says "Tiller won the reception after bidding the most for it at a silent auction sponsored by the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Sebelius donated her time to help the caucus raise money, something she said she had done before. The silent auction was part of the group's annual Torch Dinner. Sebelius had no control over who won the auction or who attended. She didn't even pay for the reception that was paid for by the Women's Political Caucus."
Similarly, the Group of 26's colleagues at Catholics for Sebelius claim that "fringe" groups are engaged in a "smear campaign" against Governor Sebelius. Part of this supposed smear campaign is tying Sebelius to the abortionist Tiller. They say: "George Tiller purchased the right to attend a reception at the governor's mansion with Gov. Sebelius by buying a table for the reception in a fundraising auction. Gov. Sebelius did not invite him to attend. Gov. Sebelius has not taken financial contributions from Tiller as a gubernatorial candidate or as governor and she appointed the state Attorney General who is prosecuting the case against him."
Not so fast! First, she may not have taken contributions as a "gubernatorial candidate" directly from Tiller, but Archbishop Naumann has said that she took money from his PAC and that earlier in her career she took money from him. Second, the organization Sebelius was fundraising for, the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus, "support[s] the right of women to control their own reproduction without governmental intrusion." From a pro-life perspective, Sebelius' hands are dirty whether or not she knew explicitly that Tiller would win the auction. The Group of 26 says that “She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.” If they are correct in this, then what was she doing fundraising for a pro abortion rights group in the first place?
UPDATE: I have been informed that the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus only endorses pro-abortion rights candidates.
Rick Garnett has posted a link to a powerful video by school-children in Washington, D.C. who have benefitted from the school choice program and who ask President Obama to oppose the efforts of the Democratic leadership in Congress to kill the program.
A column in the Wall Street Journal yesterday makes the point even more poignantly, by telling the story of Sarah and James Parker, who also are beneficiaries of the D.C. school choice program. Because of the opportunities afforded by the D.C. voucher program, the two Parker children are able to attend Sidwell Friends School -- the very same private school that President Obama chose for his daughters, Sasha and Malia.
(Sarah and James Parker)
The question is fairly and squarely presented to President Obama: Will he take a stand and support the same educational opportunity that he with his considerable wealth has chosen for his own children? Or will he capitulate to the Democratic leadership in Congress and the teachers' union and thereby deny that opportunity to his daughters' class-mates at Sidwell Friends School?
How President Obama responds to this matter may tell us much about whether the Obama Administration will be a friend to educational reform -- and there have been some positive signs, such as President Obama's past (and hopefully continuing) support of the reform-minded superintendent of public schools in D.C. If President Obama allows the D.C. voucher program to be killed by Democratic congressional leaders and the teachers' unions, we'll know that change in education apparently will have to wait for another president.
What I have dubbed the Group of 26 (Kmiec, Hollanback, Gaillardetz, et al) said of Sebelius, "She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief."
Her Archbishop responded saying: "I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. ... 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. ... 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. ... 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." (emphasis added)
