In case you missed it, Xavier Becerra has not only been voted out of committee but has support from so-called conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Attorney General Becerra is almost sure to be confirmed as the head of Health & Human Services then, thanks to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).
While Sen. Manchin has support from some pro-life groups, it's worth calling into question just how dependable he is on this issue. A statement from Manchin in part reads:
...While Attorney General Xavier Becerra and I have very different records on issues like abortion and the Second Amendment, he has affirmed to me his dedication to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the numerous needs of our nation in a bipartisan way. He has a proven record of defending the Affordable Care Act and fighting to protect the 800,000 West Virginians and millions of Americans with preexisting conditions... He committed to me that he will uphold the law in regards to the Hyde Amendment.
Xavier Becerra affirms "dedication to working with Members on both sides of the aisle... in a bipartisan way?" On what planet is Manchin living on, and how can the rest of us get to this magical place where such bipartisanship exists?
Buckle up while we break down why Manchin needs to come back down to earth.
That's nice if Manchin wants to remind us of how he has "very different records on issues like abortion" from Becerra. That doesn't cut it, though, if Manchin wants to be recognized as the pro-life Democrat he supposedly is.
Recommended
Becerra is certainly not "bipartisan" when it comes to abortion. His actions on that issue alone should make anyone but the most hardened pro-choice advocate think twice about whether this man belongs in Biden's Cabinet. While Sen. Collins does not pretend to be a pro-life senator, Manchin does.
Ask yourself if Becerra suing the Trump administration – which only lasted four years – 110 times to the tune of $41 million, is "bipartisan." If so, it sounds like you've already joined Manchin in his new extraterrestrial home. At least those like Alice Miranda Ollstein at Politico aren't pretending he is. "Trump’s health nemesis gets a new starring role: Reversing Trump’s policies," she gleefully wrote when Becerra's nomination was announced last December.
Then there's GovTrack's take on it all. Here's what the 2016 Report Card on Becerra offered:
Joined bipartisan bills the 3rd least often compared to House Democrats
Of the 142 bills that Becerra cosponsored, 14% were introduced by a legislator who was not a Democrat.
Compare to all California Delegation (12th percentile); Serving 10+ Years (30th percentile); House Democrats (1st percentile); All Representatives (39th percentile).
What's really delusional is that Manchin thinks Becerra genuinely "committed to [him] that he will uphold the law in regards to the Hyde Amendment." Of course, Becerra did, to get Manchin's support.
Again, it's worth applauding Ollstein for her honesty on this point as well. In her March 11 piece, she points out, with added emphasis, that Hyde is "the longstanding ban on federal funding for abortion that Biden and other Democrats want to abolish." Anyone who expected a Biden administration, which will likely soon include Becerra and which already has Kamala Harris as vice president, to protect American taxpayers from having to fund abortion, has been duped. We're looking at you, Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden.
This all comes back to Manchin too. Although the senator voted for an amendment that would have contained Hyde provisions in the COVID-19 "relief" bill, that amendment failed. Manchin still voted for what is now, as of Thursday afternoon, the law.
Now, back to Becerra, to prove just how out of this world Manchin's support is. It cannot be emphasized enough that not only does Becerra lack healthcare experience, but what he considers healthcare rightfully terrifies the pro-life individuals, institutions, and organizations. Now that is where Becerra has relevant "experience," as both attorney general and a congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Let's recap. Because apparently, we need to shout these concerns for the people in the back, obvious though they may be.
Becerra has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court against pro-life pregnancy centers to make them advertise for abortion, and against the Trump administration because the pro-life, religious liberty-loving president dared to protect Catholic nuns from having to provide or refer for birth control. That's one of our lawsuit examples right there.
Anyone with any shred of support for the First Amendment and religious liberty would understand that such forced participation in abortion and birth control goes deeply against the above's sincerely held beliefs.
Becerra should especially know better, considering he's not only a Catholic but a co-chair of Catholics for Biden. He makes up part of "Biden's very Catholic Cabinet," lauds National Catholic Reporter. It looks like partisan crusades, not just for Becerra, but others may trump – pun sort of intended – publicly adhering to that non-negotiable part of the Catholic faith.
Then there's David Daleiden with the Center for Medical Progress. He and his team of investigative journalists bravely went undercover to expose how Planned Parenthood was harvesting and profiting off of aborted fetal body parts. There is evidence that the abortion giant likely committed a whole litany of crimes. Becerra's predecessor, Kamala Harris, who went on to become the most liberal senator in the country and then vice president, went on the attack, even ordering Daleiden's home to be raided. Becerra then went on to charge Daleiden with a whole host of felonies. When even the Los Angeles Times takes issue with this as "disturbing overreach," you've really abused your power.
As a U.S. congressman for more than 20 years who held leadership roles, Becerra held a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice American, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. It's no wonder, considering he voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. Although it was vetoed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1997, it was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003.
Did Becerra own up to this during his confirmation when being questioned by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)? Of course not. Becerra didn't even answer the question, as anyone who can get through reading that fluff can see below. Bear with us on this too, please; it's important to see who Manchin thinks is worth supporting. The TL; DR answer though is a big fat "no." You weren't really expecting that kind of plot twist, were you?
Romney: There's a division in our country with regards to abortion, of course, as you know. And mainstream Republicans, mainstream Democrats disagree, but most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Why?
Becerra: So, Senator, here I understand that people have deeply held beliefs on this issue. And I respect that. I have worked, as I mentioned, for decades, trying to protect the health of men and women, young and old. And as Attorney General, my job has been to follow the law, and make sure others are following the law. And I'm also sitting in front of a high-risk OBGYN who, for several decades, had the work of protecting the health of women, and a future baby. And so I will tell you that 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, because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you're gonna live a healthy life. I will tell you I hope to be able to work with you and others to reach that common ground on so many different issues.
Romney: I think we can reach common ground on many issues, but on partial-birth abortion, it sounds like we're not gonna reach common ground there.
"Common ground on many issues" aside, at least Sen. Romney realized Becerra's support for partial-birth abortion, and his sheer inability to answer a question was too much of a deal-breaker.
While questioning Becerra during his confirmation hearing, Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) did not seem all that assured that the HHS secretary nominee before him would protect taxpayers from funding elective abortions. He began with addressing Braun's overall extremism:
Braun: For many of us, you know your record has been very extreme on abortion issues. Other pro-life groups have put a lot of information out there that basically you've been against pro-life on the record. Also some issues with religious liberty, manifesting itself in where you actually took to Court Little Sisters of the Poor... If you get through the proceedings intact that you are the HHS Secretary, you'd be representing everyone. And this is a very succinct question to the point. Will you commit to not using taxpayer money to fund abortions and abortion providers?
Becerra: Senator, if I could first start by saying thank you very much for the lengthy conversation we had, I definitely appreciate it. And while we probably will not agree on all the issues, I can definitely say to you that we will definitely follow the law when it comes to the use of federal resources, and so there I can make that committment that we will follow the law.
Braun: Not really the particular answer I was looking for...
With an answer like that--a typical non-answer from Becerra and, come to think of it, practically all of Biden's nominees--who can blame Braun? Come on, man, to borrow a phrase from President Joe Biden who nominated Becerra. Braun even emphasized that his question was "very succinct question to the point."
Isn't it convenient that protections for taxpayer funding weren't included in what was signed into law? Sure, Becerra, who didn't provide an adequate answer and quite frankly didn't have to, is going to follow the law. He'll be all too happy to know that he doesn't have to worry about Hyde. "Follow[ing] the law" no longer has an ounce of meaning when it comes to abortion funding.
If you want yet another example of those lawsuits, which itself has to do with abortion funding, Becerra's official attorney general website brags about how he led the charge to sue the Trump administration over the "Protect Life" rule, which blocks family planning clinics from using Title X funding if they perform or refer for abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted cert for such a case.
Once the likelihood that Becerra will be confirmed comes to fruition, he'll no longer be the attorney general of California, but the head of HHS. Thank you, Sen. Braun, who also spoke in defense of safety regulations for chemical abortions on the Senate floor, for your reminder that that means Becerra would "be representing everyone."
Will Becerra have any role in abortion policy? You bet he will, especially when he's so devoted to what he deems "women's health."
It's been 20 years now since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the RU-486. Now known as chemical abortion, a woman who undergoes this method takes one pill to terminate her pregnancy, and another to expel her dead baby, at home, without any medical supervision. If anyone tells you that abortions have decreased, you can let them know that thanks to this method – which accounted for 41 percent of abortions in 2018 – they've actually increased. This dangerous method – which carries with it four times the complications of surgical abortion – is on the rise, too.
Part of the increasing popularity is due to the lack of information about just what a chemical abortion entails. Another part of it has to do with abortion crusaders exploiting the pandemic to do away with what meager regulations existed for this method. Some commonsense safety plans included women being required to obtain those pills via telemedicine, meaning that women could get them through the mail or the internet, absent medical advice or examination.
What do you know, that leads us to another lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling against 21 states – with Becerra himself proudly acting as the ring-leader yet again – who sought to prevent these safety regulations from going through.
Students for Life of America, in part through a website dedicated to educating on chemical abortion, has spoken out against this method. The pro-life organization has also been vocal in its extensive opposition to Becerra, including its concerns with him not properly regulating chemical abortions, highlighting the above lawsuit. In an op-ed for USA Today, the organization's president, Kristan Hawkins warns that:
As head of HHS, Becerra would be in charge of the FDA. As the Clinton administration did when pushing chemical abortion pills on the market in 2000, Becerra would be able to maneuver his pro-abortion agenda forward even though the FDA has been fighting in court to keep the health and safety standards.
Now that the Biden administration is already speeding to act on its support for abortion, it's likely those protections will be done away with. The list of "Trump Administration Actions to Protect Life and Conscience" proves how that administration really was the most pro-life administration we've had. As part of what will likely be the most pro-abortion administration, Becerra is all but sure to do away with as many of those actions as he can.
Does that sound like "women's health" to you? It shouldn't if you're at all a clear-headed person and not one who is hellbent on blindly supporting the abortion industry.
Sen. Manchin, please return to earth where we need you before it's too late. We can't say for sure how much time that crusade of bipartisanship has left.
