Pro-abortion President Barack Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced on Wednesday that it is citing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for violating  federal law–the Hatch Act—by making political comments at an official event. The OSC is an independent government agency which can investigate and prosecute.

“Public officials are allowed to make political statements on their own time, but the OSC determined that Sebelius was appearing at the event in her capacity as HHS secretary,” The Hill’s Sam Baker reported.

“The counsel found that she made the comments when delivering the keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign Gala in February,” CNN reported. “After the apparent Hatch Act violation emerged, her office reclassified the trip from official to political and she reimbursed the government for associated expenses.”

Sebelius  conceded she had made a mistake but argued in a letter to the OSC , “If there was a violation of the Hatch Act based on the use of my title, I believe the violation was technical and minor.”

According to the OSC report, in her speech to the Human Rights Campaign Gala, Sebelius said, “One of the imperatives is to make sure that we not only come together here in Charlotte to present the nomination to the president, but we make sure that in November, he continues to be president for another four years.”

Baker reports that Sebelius also “ventured into state politics,” urging defeat of a ballot proposal. She added it’s “hugely important to make sure that we reelect the president and elect a Democratic governor here in North Carolina,” according to the OSC report.

The report specifies that it now goes to President Obama for “appropriate action.”

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Thanks to NRLC’s Federal Legislative Department, I am able to share with you an illuminating exchange that took place this morning. In a little over five minutes the dialogue between Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told us a great deal about how cavalierly the Obama Administration treats religious liberties. (See www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnO7qa7fMRc&feature=plcp.)

Sebelius was testifying before  the House Education and Workforce Committee  on President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal. This afforded committee members a chance to inquire about a litany of issues, including ObamaCare, and the HHS mandate requiring religious institutions and individuals of conscience to pay for health insurance plans that cover medical procedures and drugs contrary to their religious beliefs and consciences.

The video picks up with Gowdy quoting from Sebelius’s testimony where she says that the mandate “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” From there Gowdy walks her through the reasoning (or lack thereof) for the mandate and what they were “balancing” religious liberty against.

He says there are “only three balancing tests that I am aware of when it come to matters of constitutional significance.” After laying them out Gowdy explains that  “Strict scrutiny” is to be employed when fundamental rights are involved and, he added helpfully, “I am sure you can see that religious liberty is a fundamental right.”

Gowdy then asks Sebelius “which of these three constitutional balancing tests were you making reference to when you said you balanced things?”  Sebelius’s primary response here, as elsewhere, was, “this is above my pay grade.”

Gowdy clarified that his inquiries were not about “politics” but the law, because this mandate is going to wind up in the Supreme Court. He then asked her a series of uncomfortable (for her) questions.

“Which of these three tests is the appropriate test to use when considering religious liberty?” Just doing my job

“Do you agree with me that government cannot force certain religious beliefs on its citizens?” “Yes, sir. “ Why? “The separation of church and state,” Sebelius replies, when the proper answer is, of course, the Constitution—in this case the First Amendment.

“Can the government decide which religious beliefs are acceptable and not acceptable.” Her response, “No, sir.”

Gowdy asks her about a series of cases in which the Supreme Court gave a wide berth to religious liberties. Sebelius didn’t know what the cases were, or their outcomes (the religious group won them all)  before he told her.

He asks “if before this rule was promulgated did you read any of the Supreme Court cases on religious liberty?” “I did not.” She said she relied on her lawyers

“Was there a legal memo you relied on?” Nope. Sebelius said she relied on “discussions.”

Unfortunately, at that point Gowdy’s time to ask questions ended. But what he had done brilliantly was to outline many of the principal criticisms of the HHS mandate to which Sebelius could do little more than filibuster until Gowdy’s time ran out.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

It’s easy to see the Obama political machine shifting into high gear. The  Obama Administration is reaching out to one of its most important constituencies—pro-abortion feminist organizations such as NARAL—telling an eager-to-believe audience that Republicans are seeking to “roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America,” as  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said yesterday.

Speaking at NARAL’s “Chicago Power of Choice” Luncheon Wednesday Sebelius assured her audience that Obama Administration “will be fighting with you every step along the way,” likening the current situation in the states and on Capitol Hill to a “war.”

In the face of what NARAL tabulates as 62 “anti-choice” laws passed in 2011, Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas, told them it’s all the result of a misunderstanding.

“If we can fight through the misinformation and get Americans the facts,” she said, “I’m confident we can keep moving forward to a day when all American woman have access to the comprehensive health services they need and the right to make their own choices about their bodies and their own futures.” Sebelius said.

In a press release sent out in advance on the noon luncheon, NARAL President Nancy Keenan “commended Sebelius for her leadership and on issues related to women’s health and privacy, including her tenure as governor of Kansas.” Truer words have been rarely spoken. During her two terms as governor, Sebelius stonewalled pro-life measure after pro-life measure, retreating only when her actions provoked outrage.

For example, she twice vetoed laws to raise the abortion facility standards for safety for women and sanitation to at least match those of veterinary clinics in Kansas. She line-item vetoed a budget provision for matching grants to crisis pregnancy/adoption referral centers, signed it into law to soften public outrage, and then removed it from her last budget.

Each year from 2006 thru 2009, Sebelius vetoed measures that would correct the flagrant corruption of the Kansas ban on post-viability abortions, notably the hundreds of exemptions annually being claimed without bona fide medical documentation.

Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha