From this story, dated today:
The source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said Obama will formally announce the nomination on Monday.
The Sebelius pick caps a week in which Obama underscored his resolve to pass a major health care overhaul this year. He issued a challenge to Congress in his speech Tuesday, and followed up Thursday with a budget that requested an eye-popping $634 billion over 10 years, which the administration called a "down payment on coverage for all." This week, Obama will host lawmakers of both parties and representatives of major interest groups, from insurers to drug companies to consumers, at a White House summit on health care reform.
Sebelius, 60, is seen as a solid choice to head HHS because as a governor responsible for the Medicaid program in Kansas, she faced the pressure of rising health care costs directly, and saw how hard it is to expand coverage, particularly in bad economic times. She is also familiar with the insurance industry, a key interest group in the health care debate. Before becoming governor, she served as insurance commissioner, and her fellow state commissioners selected her to be national president of their association.
But no mention that "abortion foes" also have concerns (understatement, yes) about Sebelius because she is a Catholic with a consistent history of support for abortion, including speaking at Planned Parenthood fundraisers. But "anti-choice" fanatics (such as myself, I suppose) shouldn't be concerned, claims a column on the RH (Reproductive Health) Reality Check website, because although Sebelius is completely supportive of a woman's right to kill her baby, she is equally supportive of women who decide to not kill their children:
What is true
and what the anti-choice advocates don't like is that Governor Sebelius
is unequivocally pro-reproductive health care. But, that does not mean
abortion care alone. What they choose to ignore is that she is a strong
advocate for the health care of children, for prenatal care for women
and for preventive medicine. This, unfortunately, gets lost in the debate.
But, see, here's the problem: being pro-life is not about providing "comprehensive medical care" that includes the option of aborting babies; it both logically inconsistent and morally bankrupt. It's like saying you are pro-liberty but that you make allowances for folks who would like to own a slave or two, or saying you are pro-marriage as long as adults can marry eight-year-olds. The rhetoric of "anti-choice" is accurate on one hand (those opposed to abortion believe the choice to abort is wrong) and misleading on another since it tells us absolutely nothing about the moral veracity of abortion. For example, I am opposed to rape, incest, child molestation, genocide, and unjust wars, so I am therefore "anti-choice" when it comes to people choosing those evil acts. The rhetorical heart of such language is to remove moral actions from the realm of objective truth and place them in the sphere of subjective desires and interests.
Meanwhile, "anti-choice abortion foes" can try, if they wish, to take heart in candidate Obama's statement, "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise." I think it's more important to start with candidate Obama's promise to the loyal minions and lackeys of Planned Barrenhood: "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." So far, that's a promise he's been keeping.
• Obama's nominee for Office of Legal Counsel: pregnancy is slavery (Feb. 27, 2009)