How Catholics View Sebelius


This week Governor Kathleen Sebelius appeared before two Senate
Committees in hearings to determine whether she will become Secretary of Health
and Human Services. In doing so, she garnered bipartisan support for her
appointment. Many see her, as I do, as being superbly qualified to lead HHS in
a time when the nation is facing a myriad of challenging health care issues in
these troubling economic times.

Following her nomination several weeks ago, a few members of the
Catholic hierarchy and their ultra-conservative allies were critical of
Governor Sebelius, a Catholic, for her prochoice views.  We are heartened
that her Catholic social justice beliefs have guided her to protect the moral
capacity of people to make sound decisions about their lives and note that at
the center of this social justice tradition that we share with her the
preferential option for the poor, a belief that we must never ignore the needs
of those struggling to provide for their families. It is also worth reminding
these critics, and ourselves, that this is what 53 percent of the American
electorate and 54 percent of American Catholics voted for last November.

It is also important to remind critics that, while their primary focus
may be on the issue of abortion, most Catholic voters do not consider abortion
to be a top priority.  A poll conducted by Catholics for Choice in the
lead up to the 2008 election showed that Catholic voters place much greater
priority on the bread-and-butter issues.  Across the board, Catholic
voters named improving the economy (68%) and protecting the US from terrorism (54%) as top
priorities, while protecting a woman’s right to choose was towards the
bottom of the priority list (18%).

These numbers show us that it is time to move on from the culture wars
over abortion and contraception.  The Prevention Not Prohibition campaign
of Catholics for Choice was initiated to do just that.  Speaking for
Catholics and for the majority of all people throughout the country, the
campaign seeks to uplift prevention efforts in order to reduce unintended
pregnancies and the need for abortion.

It is important to note that the goal of prevention efforts should be to
reduce the need, not the number of abortions. This is a critically important
distinction. Holistic prevention efforts address all the factors under which
women decide to terminate pregnancies. These needs, like access to health care
and affordable child care, should be addressed by a society that supports
women, children and families. Those who speak of reducing the number of
abortions seek to decide for women instead of letting women decide when to
terminate or continue a pregnancy.

It is time to end the childish, petty name-calling that has
characterized this debate as seen in the nomination of Governor Sebelius.
Rather than seeking to present reproductive health as a distraction from the
real issues of the day, we need to emphasize that these services are an
integral part of providing for the needs of families. It is in economically
tough times such as these that access to these services become more difficult
for many people–not just those who have lost their jobs, but also those whose
hours have been cut and those who live from paycheck to paycheck at the best of
times. Keeping these women, men and families in mind, we look forward to the
confirmation of Governor Sebelius’s nomination by the Senate in the
upcoming weeks, and to working with her and the department to further expand
access to comprehensive health care services, including reproductive care.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    “it is time to move on from the culture wars over abortion and contraception. The Prevention Not Prohibition campaign of Catholics for Choice was initiated to do just that… It is important to note that the goal of prevention efforts should be to reduce the need, not the number of abortions.”

    That approach is no way to move on from the culture wars over abortion. How is that even a departure from the traditional pro-choice dogma?

  • http://lambdadelta.wordpress.com/ invalid-0

    Larry J. I think that the point is that the project to make abortion into a litmus test for Catholic voters has failed. If one is pro-life rather than simply anti-choice, then the way forward may well be to concentrate on reducing the need for abortion.

    For a variety of reasons the current Catholic hierarchy is unlikely to see this way forward, but for the broader community of Catholic voters, nearly 50% of whom are in favor of abortion being legal in all or most cases according to Pew Research, it is a viable strategy compatible with their personal beliefs.

    In short, while the Catholic hierarchy has strongly ant-abortion views, abortion is considerably less of a wedge issue for Catholic voters than for protestant voters.

  • otaku1960

    a question: Just what is "traditional pro-choice dogma"?

    Your grievance shall be avenged.

  • invalid-0

    How ignorant this piece is of the genuine feelings amongst REAL Catholics. Catholics for Choice are not remotely Catholic in any of their beliefs. If you a real Catholic, abortion, or any discussion of it, is off the table. Abortion is murder. Your President is pro-abortion, therefore pro-murder. It really is that simple.

    What I find most galling about the left’s attack on the Catholic Church is that none of you know anything about it. Some of you claim to be “former” Catholics but that is a lie. An obvious lie. It’s like the Pope, in order to be populist, claiming he was once an atheist.

    The left-wing’s knowledge of Catholicism stops at the Da Vinci Code and whatever Bill Maher says (which is detritus at best, as his he).

    Pro-Abortion=Murderers.

  • larry-j

    "I think that the point is that the project to make abortion into a litmus test for Catholic voters has failed."

     

    If that was the point, then it’s hardly news.  That’s been the case for more than a decade.  

     

    "abortion is considerably less of a wedge issue for Catholic voters than for
    protestant voters."

     

    I’m not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.  Catholics are fairly representative of the population when polled on abortion, but ‘observant Catholics’ (those who regularly attend mass) skew strongly pro-life.  Likewise, there is a split between Mainline Protestants and Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants.

     

    How is it more of an issue for protestants- or were you thinking less of protestants generally than of to the degree that it is a wedge issue in particular (usu evangelical or fundamentalist) protestant churches.  I could see that. 

     

    "If one is pro-life rather than simply anti-choice, then the way forward
    may well be to concentrate on reducing the need for  abortion."

     

    ‘Pro-life’ and ‘anti-choice’ are synonymous.  There’s something called the ‘Consistant Life Ethic’- maybe you were thinking of that.

     

    At any rate, reducing the need for abortion is a good thing from any point of view, but the pro-life movement can’t limit itself to that.  Doing so would have too limited an effect on the total number of abortions.  (The Brookings Institute estimated between a 1 and 2% reduction.)

  • larry-j

    So, are you saying that only the regular attenders are real catholics?  That’s where the split is in polling: between those who self identify as catholic and go irregularly or not at all, and those who go more than twice a month.

  • larry-j

    The dogma is that not only is abortion an important legal right, but having one must be treated as value neutral.

  • colleen

    Who says that having an abortion "must be treated as ‘value neutral’"? Women you’ve tried to date?

     

  • larry-j

    (Ignoring the adolescent attempt at humor)

     

    So reducing the number not merely the need with publicity campaigns (rather than laws) aimed at stopping women from choosing abortion-

     

    that’s okay as part of reduction then?

     

    glad to hear it.

  • colleen

    So reducing the number not merely the need with publicity campaigns
    (rather than laws) aimed at stopping women from choosing abortion- that’s okay as part of reduction then?

    I’m sorry, is this poorly expressed thought supposed to be some  sort of evidence of a pro-choice dogma which insists that abortion be "value-neutral"?