By Dave Andrusko
Last week we wrote about the selection of pro-abortion zealot and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to be Joe Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. We talked then, and have since, about the odd ‘fits’ many of Biden’s choices are, including Becerra.
Referring to Becerra, writing at National Review Online, John McCormack’s headline noted, “Biden Picks a Culture Warrior to Run HHS in the Middle of a Pandemic.”
McCormack then asked
What are Becerra’s qualifications to run the most important federal agency at the peak of the worst pandemic in a century?
Becerra, a former congressman, has no experience working at HHS and no medical background. He has never been chief executive of a state, or even of a large, complex organization.
His “qualifications” are that as Attorney General, he hunted for ways to harass Pregnancy Help Centers, brushing off their First Amendment rights,” while in 2016, as a congressman (as Isaac Schorr observed)
voted against a bill meant to protect the conscience rights of health-care providers by barring federal, state, and local governments from punishing those who refused to “perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate in abortion.”
(More about his long record in Congress below.)
Besides running the pro-abortion flag up the pole and saluting it; and lacking qualifications for the jobs Biden has selected them for, a third common denominator is something we will hear unceasingly about Biden appointments: they are not nearly as pro-abortion or out-of-the-mainstream as critics assert they are–and that only you know who (Bible-pounders, deplorables, etc.) could possibly oppose them.
Take Mary Sanchez, writing at The Austin American-Statesman.
Sanchez adopts the typical let’s-talk-around-the-charges strategy. No, Becerra is not “aggressively pro-abortion” and no, his selection is not “Declaring War on nuns,” to choose two headlines Sanchez pooh-poohs.
Sanchez switches to talk about a favorite topic of hers–the Affordable Care Act—as if somehow that negates the characterizations of Becerra. She writes as if ObamaCare did not have abortion-promoting components, and as if the Little Sisters of the Poor have not fought for years a mandate, issued by HHS under a provision of ObamaCare, which would force them to provide health insurance coverage for products and procedures they find “morally unacceptable.”
And, by the way, Becerra was no innocent bystander. As Fox News pointed out, “In one of the more high-profile suits [against the Trump administration] that California took the lead on under Becerra, the state sued HHS over a rule it issued that expanded the exemption for certain private organizations or companies” whose “owners believe [the mandate] go against their faith. “
And, to return to Becerra’s awful record as a congressman from 1993-2017, naturally Sanchez totally omits any and all reference.
But during that long time span, there was nothing that NARAL and the Abortion Lobby wanted supported (or opposed) that Rep. Becerra didn’t gleefully get behind.
Laws against sex-selection abortion (Becerra was against their passage). Laws such as the Conscience Protection Act (Becerra was against those as well).
Even a law that prohibited partial-birth abortions, so hideous that even many pro-abortion fellow travelers gulped. Not for Becerra.
So, unqualified for heading HHS except as a militant pro-abortionist in an administration that will thirst after more abortions and more attacks on freedom of conscience.
You don’t to be a “Bible thumper” to see the obvious.