Sebelius, Michael Perry, and Setting the Record Straight

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.