Thursday, April 23, 2009

Sebelius veto triggers more Republican opposition

Gov. Sebelius' veto of reasonable abortion regulations today brought out more opposition from Republicans. GOP Chairman Michael Steele voiced his opposition to a vote on Sebelius until she answers more questions regarding her relationship with abortionist George Tiller.

Democrats were quick to say the opposition was just a move by Steele to shore up his pro-life creds. That may certainly be a possibility. Steele wasn't my first pick for GOP chair and he's certainly made some bonehead moves since his election. However, I think the more likely reason Steele is voicing opposition is because he's learning more and more about Sebelius' radical pro-abortion record and realizing that more and more GOP Senators aren't going to roll over.

What exactly has Tiller done for Sebelius that she feels so in debt to him? It's almost scary to think about what the guy has done that she'd be willing to put her nomination in even the slightest risk to protect him from prosecution.

The veto also brought a response from Sen. Tim Huelskamp. In the blast email sent shortly after the veto Huelskamp said:
"The pro-abortion veto by Governor Sebelius in the last hour of the last day of her 10-day period demonstrates her radical commitment to George Tiller and late-term abortion. It is simply shocking that someone so indebted to the late-term abortion industry is still being considered for Secretary of HHS.”
A quick check of Wasinger site shows no statement regarding the veto. It's become clear Rob is in favor of Sebelius being HHS Secretary, but it would seem an acknowledgment of her veto would at least be in order, even if it didn't address his upcoming Senate confirmation.

I doubt the new opposition will block her confirmation. But then again I didn't think there would be this much opposition at all, so a lot is possible over the next week.

1 comment:

Miss Anonymous said...

SB218 is not a "reasonable" bill. It changes the definition of fetal viability from:

"...capable of sustained
survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical means..."
to

"...there is a reasonable probability that the life of the child can be continued indefinitely outside the mother’s womb with natural or artificial life-supportive measures."This is a bill that will create hundreds, if not thousands, of little one-pound Terri Shiavo's, all kept on neo-natal life support, in hospitals all across Kansas.

That's exactly how we want to bankrupt Kansas families, and after we've run them into the ground and onto the streets, the State of Kansas can take over paying for this "indefinite" life support. Further, this begs the question: With neo-natal intensive care resources in this state already stretched thin, what about taking care of actual babies who are in desperate need of treatment?