Xavier Becerra Would Be The Most Partisan HHS Secretary We’ve Ever Had, And He’s Not Even Qualified

|
Posted: Mar 10, 2021 7:00 PM
Xavier Becerra Would Be The Most Partisan HHS Secretary We’ve Ever Had, And He’s Not Even Qualified

Source: Greg Nash/Pool via AP

If Democrats have their way, Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s reign of terror won’t be limited to just California. The U.S. Senate is set to vote any day now on whether Becerra will be confirmed as the next Health and Human Services Secretary. Becerra was voted out of committee last week in a tied vote along party lines. 

Supporters celebrate how Becerra would be the first Latino HHS Secretary, that his parents were Mexican immigrants. Becerra referenced this in his opening statements. That may be touching, but it doesn’t say anything about how he would lead the HHS.

Don’t let this inspiring story get you too excited. If such partisanship doesn’t raise concerns, perhaps Becerra’s record will. If there’s anything we can say about Attorney General Becerra’s healthcare experience, it’s that if you dare to disagree with him on what constitutes women’s “healthcare,” you can expect to be sued. It’s hard to find someone more hellbent on forcing non-profit pro-life pregnancy centers to promote free abortions, or for Catholic nuns to provide free birth control. 

Becerra followed Kamala Harris in becoming attorney general. Notice how our Catholic president Joe Biden isn’t as devoted to practicing his faith with his policies as he is to stuffing his cabinet with those who would demean that faith. In the 5-4 Supreme Court case of NIFLA v. Becerra, pro-life pregnancy centers managed to fend off an aggressive fight from the Attorney General’s office which forced these centers to promote free, state-provided abortions.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, there’s plenty more to be said about the Little Sisters of the Poor. After years of litigation, the Court ruled in favor of Catholic nuns who didn’t wish to have to provide for or refer for birth control. The Trump administration stepped in to protect the Little Sisters, but Becerra was relentless, emphasizing in a complaint that such a rule would mean “millions of women in California may be left without access to contraceptives” and that it would cause “immediate and irreparable harm.”

How did Becerra address this during his confirmation hearing when asked to explain himself by Sen. John Thune? He brushed it off as a matter of suing the Trump administration. The mainstream media came to his rescue and stuck by his side on this non-answer.  

Such deflecting seems to be Becerra’s go-to, though. Mitt Romney--not exactly a poster child for the Republican Party anymore--asked Becerra about his vote on a partial-birth abortion ban when he was a member of Congress. The ban is now law, no thanks to Becerra. He didn’t even own up to it though.

"When I come to these issues, I understand that we may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues," Becerra told Romney, who responded "on partial-birth abortion it sounds like we’re not going to reach common ground there."

While partial-birth abortion has been illegal for almost two decades now, it doesn’t bring about any more relief when it comes to Becerra’s answers. He couldn’t name an abortion restriction he supported. But he did say his mother prays the rosary and that he would “respect” and “enforce” the law. 

Forgive us for not being so assured. If his past record is any indication--and why shouldn’t it be--we can expect pro-lifers to be forced to fund or participate in such a morally egregious practice. Gone will be conscience protections, while taxpayer funded abortions will be the new norm. During his hearing, Becerra told Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) that “we probably will not agree on all the issues” when asked about funding abortions. 

"I can say to you that we will follow the law when it comes to the use of federal resources. There I can make that commitment that we will follow the law." Braun mentioned it was "not really the particular answer I was looking for."

If Becerra’s office is willing to go after Catholic nuns, why would investigative journalists be spared, then? Both Harris and Becerra punished David Daleiden for exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of fetal body parts with his undercover videos through the Center for Medical Progress. The felony charges against Daleiden just kept piling on. Even The Los Angeles Times saw reason to sound the alarm, with an editorial decrying the “disturbing overreach.”

To think that Becerra is actually a co-chair of Catholics for Biden. He uses--more accurately, abuses--his authority, though, to prevent those who do practice the faith from doing so. 

For Becerra to be the only such kind of nominee is disheartening enough. Rather, this is a pattern from the Biden Administration, though. Neera Tanden--remember her?--was nominated to head the Office of Management and Budget, until that was pulled. She’s another underqualified, partisan selection. Sen. Ted Cruz rightfully ran right through Vanita Gupta, nominated to be an Associate Attorney General, for the “extreme partisan advocate” that she is, because she is just that. Why shouldn't she expect to be questioned on that?

If any one of these nominees are confirmed, it's going to be a long, divisive administration. So much for that unity we were assured of.