Sebelius and Tiller: What could be worse? Plenty.Abortion, Domestic Policy, Politics — By Rachel Motte on April 21, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius won Senate Finance Committee approval today as she moves closer to becoming the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. The full Senate is expected to vote on her confirmation within the week.
Unfortunately, despite her tax indiscretions and questionable dealings with Kansas abortionist George Tiller, Sebelius faces little opposition in these final stages of the confirmation process. Even the historically pro-life Senator Brownback has chosen to support her nomination for admittedly political reasons.
The Health and Human Services Secretary position is one of the few cabinet seats in which one’s views on abortion are immediately relevant… and given her history, pro-life activists can be sure that a Secretary Sebelius will not make their work any easier.
Worse, it turns out that abortion isn’t the only health issue on which Sebelius holds alarming views:
“…sadly, Sebelius’ relationship with a partial-birth abortionist is, perhaps, not the most concerning thing about Sebelius — at least not according to Senate Minority Whip and Finance Committee Member John Kyl (R-AZ).
Reading the Associated Press report, one would assume Tiller is the only problem, yet he barely draws a mention in Kyl’s press release on Sebelius. Instead, Kyl (who voted against Sebelius) singled out Sebelus’ views on “comparative effectiveness research”.
In English, that translates roughly as research to determine who is worth health care and who we should just let die.
Essentially, when you factor “comparative effectiveness” into medical decisions, it means that those decisions have to be made at least partially based on cost rather than the best interest of the patient. According to Kyl,
“Governor Sebelius’ answers made it clear that the Administration is unwilling to support pro-patient safeguards. She left me with no assurance that HHS…will not use comparative effectiveness research as a tool to deny care”.
That is why he voted against her, not because of her disturbing affiliation with a guy who likes to kill perfectly viable babies”.
This is not good news…. ‘