Kathleen Sebelius at HHS: Why Abortion and Taxes May Be the Least of Our Worries

Earlier today, the Senate Finance Committee voted in favor of Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services -- sending the issue to the full Senate for a final vote.

It was far from unanimous, as only two of the committee's Republicans were willing to support her (Sens. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Olympia Snowe of Maine).

Some of President Obama's nominees have sailed through without much trouble, some have faced primarily partisan opposition, and still others (*cough*Geithner) have sparked criticism with their personal indiscretions -- but Sebelius is different.

She started out with little more than token opposition, and while there were a few minor blips (she also had a tax issue), she hasn't hit any Geithner-esque speed bumps. Instead, she has spooked many of Republicans not with bad judgment calls, but with stomach-churning positions on key issues that she would face as HHS Secretary.

Now, we knew there would be some trouble from the start, as conservatives are unsettled by her relationship with notorious late-term abortion provider George Tiller -- who has donated over $12,000 to Sebelius and another $23,000 to her political action committee. However, we've known about Tiller a long time ago. He was a big issue, and the primary one cited by the media, but 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.

Personally, I am starting to think Sebelius is actually a very dangerous woman -- especially if you believe we are going to get government-run health care. It should not have been hard for her to assure Congress that the she won't try to deny citizens health care -- but apparently she just couldn't bring herself to do it. That's just plain scary.

I can see no way that any Senator could support this nomination in good conscience, and I am especially disappointed in the two supposedly-conservative Senators from Kansas.

Granted, elections have consequences, and it would be ridiculous to expect Obama to pick a conservative for HHS Secretary. Still, Sebelius' positions make her an especially unacceptable choice for this role. She would have, perhaps, been acceptable for Secretary of the Interior or something -- and then I could stomach the home-state pride being expressed by Sam Brownback or Pat Roberts.

However, considering she has perhaps the most radically liberal health care record of any governor in the country, I would hope the the two Senators would reconsider.