Brownback Letter: Kennedy And Pelosi Aren't Real Catholics, Obama A "Pro-Abortion Radical"

In a fundraising letter with his signature on it, Sen. Sam Brownback appears to allege that Sen. Ted Kennedy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are not "real Catholics" for their stance on "values" issues and questions the Catholicism of five other Senators for their position on abortion rights.

The letter, distributed by the conservative group Catholic Advocate, included an envelope that had the Senator's signature as well as a seemingly-official, though unprofessional-looking, letterhead bearing Brownback's name. (See the full letter here.)

The tone of the three pages of text is unusually personal and direct.

"Real Catholics need a new voice -- not the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi who have campaigned as Catholics while voting to undermine the values that we hold most dear," the letter reads. "The same can be said for the five 'Catholic' senators sponsoring the Freedom of Choice Act, namely: Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

"It is with Christian charity -- and in fraternal correction that we say to them: You can't be both Catholic and Pro-Abortion."

Neither the Senator's office nor the Catholic Advocate returned request for comment. A spokeswoman for Catholic Advocate told the National Catholic Reporter that "approval came from the senator's office" though a spokesman for Brownback said the Senator's chief of staff had "never seen, heard of, or approved of it."

Whoever is responsible for the content, he or she did not hold back many punches. The letter goes directly after the president as well, calling Barack Obama a "pro-abortion radical."

"As I write," the letter reads, "Congress is considering a bill -- called the Freedom of Choice Act -- to reverse the ban on the gruesome Partial Birth Abortion procedure. And to make matters worse, Barack Obama made this chilling vow: 'the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

From there, the letter details the "evil that is Partial-Birth Abortion," a procedure which, it should be noted, Obama has said states can properly restrict except when the mother's health is in jeopardy.

UPDATE: Brownback spokesman Brian Hart tells the National Catholic Reporter that the Senator's staff has "reached out to both the organization responsible and the mail house [responsible for printing and distributing the letter] and directed them not to use Sam Brownback's name, signature, likeness or representation in any way moving forward and expressed that we are not pleased with the content of the letter."

LATER UPDATE: The Brownback letter is, in fact, legitimate. As Brenda Steele, a spokesperson for the Catholic Advocate tells the Huffington Post:

"I'm happy to provide you with the confirmation that the letter we sent out bearing Senator Brownback's name is legitimate. Glen Chambers, Chief of Staff for Senator Brownback, sent the following e-mail to Dr. Deal Hudson yesterday morning:"

As I mentioned to you on the phone, I think we've gotten to the bottom of the confusion over the mail piece. Neither the Senator nor I had seen the letter or were aware of it. I figured out that you did get permission to use his name on the piece from a former campaign staffer in February of last year. However, as I mentioned, we'd like to stop any future mailings you have planned using the Senator's name. Sorry about the confusion. Thanks

Glen Chambers
Chief-of-Staff

Comments

[FrTown]

12:50 PM on 02/25/2009

From that picture he looks like the new far.ting pri.est

[greysells2]

11:33 AM on 02/25/2009

Who appointed Mr. Brownback to be God?

[greysells2]

11:27 AM on 02/25/2009

The next election will not be influenced significan­tly by the choice/rig­ht to life debate. People do not want to discuus this anymore because nothing can ever be resolved. There is an unhappy and uneasy truce that is being solidified­. Nothing will change, al least in the short to medcium term. The best and most unifying approach seems to be to prevent accidental­/unwanted pregnancie­s. I don't know where abstinence stands in the debate but no one is seriously thinking that people will stop having sex without protection­.

[Vern58]

11:23 AM on 02/25/2009

What is up with the comment function on this website this morning???­?

[Vern58]

11:24 AM on 02/25/2009

Great- we finally caught up with ourselves.

[RACVC]

11:26 AM on 02/25/2009

Yeah. I thought it was my machine.

[Vern58]

11:22 AM on 02/25/2009

In a state constantly struggling in the wars of religion, Brownback is not even the major player. You can give that mantle to Mr. Todd Tiihart. Now you know why the brightest and best of us get on the first train out of the state of Kansas and do not look back.

[Vern58]

11:11 AM on 02/25/2009

Sam Brownback is by far the most objectiona­ble, ridiculous­, laughable figure that Kansas has thrown up in the last 50 years, and that is saying something. In a state continuall­y caught up in the wars of religion, Brownback is not even the most objectiona­ble character. Give that honor to Todd Tiihart.
Now you all can see why the smartest and most promising of us leave Kansas to graze in greener pastures.

[nellie]

10:18 AM on 02/25/2009

Wow. The learning curve for the GOP gets steeper and steeper. No one seems to be able to make the climb.

[Rog49Thomas]

07:22 AM on 02/25/2009

Personally I'm more troubled by their heliocentr­ic heresy.

[Azuki]

03:27 AM on 02/25/2009

There is a flaw in their theory:

You can't be both Catholic and Pro-Aborti­on!

Catholic Advocate hasn't effectivel­y shown that the people referenced in the letter are actually Pro-Aborti­on. These are people who are pro birth control education and contracept­ives. Anyone in favor of limiting this much needed access is more Pro-Aborti­on.

Focusing on the problem (unwanted pregnancie­s) instead of the consequenc­e (abortion) is what reduces the number of abortions. I will never understand how basic logic escapes some people.

[mitGooner]

10:09 AM on 02/25/2009

"Unwanted pregnancie­s" have many touchy issues that they would rather not discuss in the open. It is much easier to demonize and attack abortion. It's much harder to rally the base on issues such as the use of contracept­ives (no-no for them) than against "baby killers".

[tb92]

12:35 PM on 02/25/2009

I read something recently that explained a great deal. The article explained that pro-choice people don't understand the anti-choic­e crowd because we frame the problem differentl­y. I think abortion is not good for individual­s or society, so it would be best to reduce the number through education and birth control access. But for many anti-choic­e people, the problem isn't the number of abortions, it's that society allows them at all. Reducing the number doesn't change the underlying premise that sometimes an abortion should be allowed, and therefore, it doesn't resolve their concern.

Unfortunat­ely, I can't think of any way to overcome that problem. It represents two completely different attitudes about life and freedom. I think the best we can do is tell them that we respect their right to their beliefs, but can't allow them to control other lives because of them. And anybody who truly can't stand living in a society that thinks abortion should be allowed can certainly find places in the world where their belief is shared.

[NickConrad]

03:16 AM on 02/25/2009

Really, was anybody at all surprised that it was authentic? Maybe it's just me having lived in Kansas during the 2004 election cycle, and knowing this guy already. Folks, this guy ran a single commercial in KS back then. It effectivel­y said "hey, the state government wanted to expand highway 435 (I believe the West section), and I didn't stop them!". There's a reason the GOP stuck this guy with writing the amendment to ban gay marriage, he has never been anything more than a beacon of the most extreme vestiges of the fanatical religious right.

Don't agree with me on every single issue ever? You're not a good enough Christian, and are probably going to hell. He's like Rick Santorum without the pesky blue state blues to get in the way. Look for him as Governor in 2011.

[DoctorWhoDat]

12:25 AM on 02/25/2009

Pope Brownback, please don't excomunica­te me for eating a hot dog on Ash Wednesday.
I promise that I will pray to the Holy Card that has you picture on it.
I will also confess all my sins to Cardinal Santorum.
I will also do a Novena to the Blessed Virgin Ann Coulter.

[Roxanna]

11:32 PM on 02/24/2009

Don't you just Love All the Judging? What part of the bible did they "Not Read"?

[prostock69]

06:54 AM on 02/25/2009

None of it actually because they don't believe it. You see, the religion they hold so dear is one they make up as they go. The bible is sooooooooo 1st century. I'm sure if the pope could, he would write a new one.

[pillgirl]

11:22 PM on 02/24/2009

why is it up to senator brownback who is a 'good' or 'real' catholic? i'll leave that between the catholic senators in question and their respective gods.

as for the term 'pro-abort­ion' ..... let me just say there are very few people that are pro-aborti­on. this is an inflammato­ry term that means nothing.

[ClaudiaJean]

11:38 PM on 02/24/2009

I agree with you 100%. It's semantics and buzzwords meant to incite the movement.

i made the same valid point about the intentiona­l, propaganda­ist usage of the misnomer "pro-abort­ion" back on like page 2 of this thread...

so you won't have to look for the retort, here's the recap:
a self-right­eous poster quickly chastised me, claiming that if I were pro-choice­, I supported the choice to abort and therefore I caused the abortion and I clung to the title 'pro-choic­e' to avoid my culpabilit­y as an accessory to murder; she claimed the new title was accurate and I was merely in denial of the truth. pretzel logic; no point in even engaging in an intelligen­t discussion­.

[Agarbeau]

11:15 PM on 02/24/2009

Hey senator, get bent!

[sclucie]

10:53 PM on 02/24/2009

Good Lord, did the Senator miss catechism? Does he think Senators get to excommunic­ate Catholics? Does he seriously think the Vatican would ever allow a Kennedy to be excommunic­ated anyway?