FamilyFoundationBlog.com

Hillary Clinton may think it takes a village to raise your child — a village of her own choosing, of course. But Virginians think otherwise. Just prior to crossover, the House of Delegates passed a resolution affirming parental rights 64-31! This resolution, HJ 193, patroned by Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-96, Yorktown), urges Congress to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that, “the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.”

In case you have not yet heard about the Parents Rights amendment, let me give you the facts (see our policy brief, here). In the United States, parents have traditionally held the right to raise their own children according to their own beliefs. This right has been upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court for 70 years. However, recent court rulings on parental rights have shown that the court is becoming divided on this critical issue. In fact, the court issued 6 different opinions in the parental rights case Troxel v. Granville (2000), with only four justices acknowledging that parental rights were protected by the Constitution.

There’s another reason to be concerned about the plight of parental rights: the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (see our preivous post and video about this). Supported by people such as President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), this treaty actually has a chance of passing. Currently, the United States and Somalia are the only countries that have not passed the treaty. If this treaty is passed, it will undermine parental rights unless the Constitution clearly says otherwise.

Delegate Pogge’s resolution received enthusiastic support from both sides of the aisle in the House. However, this resolution will not become law unless it is also passed in the Virginia Senate. As many of you know, the Senate is much less receptive to family issues like this than the House of Delegates. When the bill is debated in the Senate, we will ask you to contact your Senators to urge their support of this measure.

Another parental rights effort did not meet with the same success. Several legislators this year introduced bills that would have allowed home school students to participate in public school sports programs. Unfortunately, despite the fact that their parents pay for public schools and their programs through tax dollars, home school students are treated as second-class citizens.

Delegate Rob Bell’s (R-58, Charlottesville) HB 926, which would have directed the Virginia High School League to allow homes school students eligibility, was “carried over” (see vote) until next year by the House Education Committee after a lengthy debate and opposition by the VHSL. This will give Delegate Bell the opportunity to work with the interested parties to seek a solution to the problem.

The DNC Chairman, Governor Tim Kaine (contact here) sounded off last night in the attorney general’s campaign. Literally. He voiced a “robo call” on behalf of Democrat AG candidate Steve Shannon. Unfortunately, he really didn’t have much to say about Delegate Shannon’s qualifications.

Instead, he launched into a vicious attack on Republican attorney general candidate Ken Cuccinelli, using a Washington Post editorial as cover for calling him “bigoted” (see Norm’s Leahy’s first-hand account at Tertium Quids). I, myself, got a call from an African-American friend immediately after he received the call. He reasoned the calls were going into African-American neighborhoods to pump the fear of Satan into otherwise disinterested black voters. But they also went into upper income, socially conscious (i.e., “moderate”) white neighborhoods, too, the areas that the GOP seems to be gaining back this campaign. Which makes sense: with a double digit lead, the only way to defeat Senator Cuccinelli is to expand the voter universe and flip some votes (or get them to skip the AG ballot).

What is interesting is why the DNC chairman and his hacks think they can pick off Senator Cuccinelli. In the SurveyUSA poll, out today, he has the largest lead of the three (20 points!) — and even the Democrat Public Policy Poll says he leads in all regions of the commonwealth, including the liberal bastion of Northern Virginia. (How can that be?) The answer? Trashing the constitution and our founding principles. By parodying Senator Cuccinelli’s principled stands and record of adhering strictly to the constitution, liberals think they can caricature him into something abominable because adhering to Life and Liberty aren’t nearly so important as doling out government-style happiness.

No matter whether one interprets “bigotry” to be the racial kind or the “intolerant of other lifestyles” kind (the call left that open to your interpretation), it’s interesting to note that it was Senator Cuccinelli who accepted, attended, spoke and stayed late to meet people at the Virginia NAACP’s recent forum and Delegate Shannon who accepted — but stood them up. It’s also strange that Governor Kaine thought highly enough of Senator Cuccinelli to work with him on this summer’s special session to remedy the impact on Virginia from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Melendez-Diaz decision. (You remember . . .the session Shannon called a “political stunt.”)

Even stranger is Delegate Shannon’s previous dinner engagements at the home of Senator Cuccinelli. Guess he was an okay guy before he went up double digits, huh? 

Ever since he took the DNC job, Governor Kaine has not been able to decide whether he is governor or desperate partisan in chief. His level of campaigning is beneath the dignity of the office Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson once occupied.

In yesterday’s News Stand, we posted a commentary from CNN.com entitled, “Let’s End Disposable Marriage,” by retiring Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. It is a startling piece about an issue that affects nearly every American family — divorce — yet is seldom addressed by the political class.

In her column, Justice Sears wrote:

The coupling and uncoupling we’ve become accustomed to undermines our democracy, destroys our families and devastates the lives of our children, who are not as resilient as we may wish to think. The one-parent norm, which is necessary and successful in many cases, nevertheless often creates a host of other problems, from poverty to crime, teen pregnancy and drug abuse.

It has become too easy for people to walk away from their families and commitments without a real regard for the gravity of their decision and the consequence for other people, particularly children.

These are the words not of a “right winger,” but of someone who has been mentioned as a potential Barack Obama nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court and who was a target of the Georgia Republican Party and Christian Coalition during her 2004 re-election. She has seen the catastrophic results of unilateral divorce both personally and professionally, writing, “As a judge I have long held a front row seat to the wreckage left behind by our culture of disposable marriage and casual divorce.”

The tide is turning on the issue of no-fault divorce. Last fall, a poll found that 62 percent of Californians do not think that either spouse should be allowed to terminate marriage at any time for any reason. This from the state that gave us no-fault divorce in the first place! It is time that we address this issue head on, both in the church and in the arena of public policy.

Few can doubt the harm that unilateral divorce has brought to American families. Still, many think this is one of those issues where the most one can do is throw up their hands. It’s not. 

The Family Foundation has proposed that mutual consent must be required for a couple to divorce when children are involved — meaning that one spouse cannot simply walk away without cause. Unfortunately, this proposal has met with little support from either political party in Richmond. In fact, when presented, most elected officials we’ve talked with have run for cover. But we will continue to advocate for this proposal until it receives a fair and complete hearing in the General Assembly and becomes law. 

We can talk all we want about fixing our tax code to help families. We can work toward “fixing” health care and all of the other economic challenges we face. But the fact is that we will not adequately address the issue of saving the American family until we address the issue of unilateral divorce. Until we elect representatives with the courage to tackle this issue we will be doing little to save the next generation from the same devastating consequences that we seek to overcome today.

At nearly the same moment that the California Supreme Court released its surprising, but correct, decision in upholding that state’s recently ratified constitutional amendmentprotecting traditional marriage by defining the institution as between one man and one woman, President Barack Obama announced his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Almost immediately, forces on both sides of the U.S. Supreme Court debate staked out their positions — many without having any idea what she actually stands for — and the battle over her nomination began.

What is striking to us is just how far we have come from the system of government our Founders envisioned. The news media, pundits, elected officials, public interest groups and scores of Americans have their entire focus on the make up and actions of the judiciary — the third branch of government and the one the Founders intended to be the least powerful.

So here we are today with our freedoms hanging in the balance, with the future definition of terms like marriage and family awaiting validation or reversal by a handful of men and women whom, for the most part, we did not elect. Such is not the Republic we were meant to be, and frankly, such is a Republic that cannot sustain itself for long.

Regardless of the outcome of the nomination proceedings for Judge Sotomayor, our system of government — a Constitutional Republic — loses a cornerstone when the voice and will of the people as expressed through our Constitution is subject to the whims of an elite few.

The people of Virginia in 2006 voted overwhelmingly to protect the definition of marriage. Like California, our laws protecting marriage were at the mercy of the courts until Virginians were given the opportunity to amend the state Constitution to define marriage. Because of that vote a handful of judges should not be able to toss aside thousands of years of human history and the evidence of social science that marriage between one man and one woman is best for society, families and children.

Yet, we know it is very likely that at some point our marriage amendment, or another state’s marriage amendment, will face scrutiny by nine people in black robes whom are accountable to no one — some of whom are no longer accountable to the document they swore an oath to uphold.

That is not the America our Founders envisioned.

Lots of campaign news today, as one might expect, as Brian Moran racks up more endorsements, and Virginia Republicans gear up for their nominating convention this weekend. But most of the big stuff concerns yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision upholding that state’s recently ratified constitutional amendment defining marriage as a between one man and one woman, and President Barack Obama’s selection of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

There are several good articles and commentaries on these subjects in the National News and Commentary sections below. Also, please read Bobby Eberle’s rejoinder to retired General Colin Powell regarding his campaign to minimize conservatism in the Republican Party. Finally, be sure to read about a bill one congressman has introduced that would make 2010 “The Year of the Bible” — and his co-sponsors include members of both parties, as well as Christian and Jewish members. 

News:

Virginians critique nominee (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Moran picking up local support (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star) 

Democrats’ Inside Man Steps Into Spotlight (Washington Post)

GOP hopefuls for Fralin’s House seat hold forum (Roanoke Times) 

McDonnell backs Mullins for chairman of state GOP (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

GOP will choose slate of state candidates this weekend (Winchester Star)

LU Democrats club to meet with Falwell today (Lynchburg News & Advance) 

National News:

Calif. Ruling Shows Hurdles Remain for Gay Marriage (Washington Post)

Don’t expect smooth sailing for Sotomayor (OneNewsNow.com)

For Sotomayor, discrimination case likely issue (AP/GOPUSA.com)

2010: The year of the Bible? (OneNewsNow.com)

Commentary:

‘Empathy’ in Action (Thomas Sowell/GOPUSA.com)

Sotomayor: Racial Politics and Making Policy (Bobby Eberle/GOPUSA.com)

To Gen. Powell . . . Just Where Have We Gone Too Far To The Right? (Bobby Eberle/GOPUSA.com)

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia states:

“That all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” [Emphasis added]

Today, thanks to the action of the Virginia State Police Superintendent and its endorsement by Governor Tim Kaine, Thomas Jefferson’s words are little more than ink on paper. The words of the Statute for Religious Freedom that is the foundation for the tradition of religious liberty in our nation and the precursor to the First Amendment rings hollow in the ears of those state police chaplains who have had their opinions in matters of religion diminished and their civil capacities affected simply because they refuse to silence their faith.

As is usual with the issue of religious liberty, the debate surrounding the policy and legislation before the General Assembly to correct it, including several editorials in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, is replete with misinformation, misunderstanding and confusion. Some, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, falsely claim that prayers offered before legislative or government bodies must be nonsectarian or non-denominational. Fortunately, the First Amendment and case law regarding this issue is absolutely clear and on the side of the chaplains.

Simply put, in no case involving public prayer at government-sponsored events (with the exception being public schools) does either the U.S. Supreme Court or any circuit court require that prayers offered be so-called “nonsectarian” or “nondenominational.” In fact, the opposite is true. In the clear words of the Supreme Court’s Marsh v. Chambers decision:

“In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Pelphrey v. Cobb dismissed the argument that Marsh permits only “nonsectarian” prayers:

“The taxpayers argue that Marsh permits only “nonsectarian” prayers for commission meetings, but their reading is contrary to the command of Marsh that the courts are not to evaluate the content of the prayers absent evidence of exploitation. … The court never held that the prayers in Marsh were constitutional because they were “nonsectarian.”

Supporters of censorship, like the ACLU, are claiming that the Fourth Circuit Court’s Turner v. Fredericksburg decision requires the state police’s policy of censorship. Again, this is blatantly false.

While that case upheld a policy in Fredericksburg that censors prayers, it does not require that policy. In fact, in the words of Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the Turner decision:

“We need not decide whether the Establishment Clause compelled the Council to adopt their legislative prayer policy because the Establishment Clause does not absolutely dictate the form of legislative prayer.”

Again, in Pelphrey, the Eleventh Circuit says:

“Although it upheld the policy of the [Fredericksburg City] Council, the Fourth Circuit expressly declined to hold that Marsh required a policy of nondenominational prayers.” Adding, “[The courts] . . . have applied the precedents of the Supreme Court irrespective of the level of government involved.”

Interestingly, in arguing against legislation reversing the state police policy in a recent Washington Post article, Kent Willis of the Virginia ACLU makes our case saying, “Maybe the worst part of all this is now you have the government deciding what’s a proper prayer and what’s not a proper prayer.”

I couldn’t agree more! The government should not be telling people how to pray or not to pray, and that is exactly what the state police policy does. Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other faith, chaplains should be able to pray at public events according to their beliefs, and those prayers should not be censored by the government. The legislation that has been presented to the General Assembly this year would simply protect chaplains of every religion.

Virginians are growing tired of these attacks on public faith. Our Commonwealth and nation are founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and no amount of revisionist history or politically motivated anti-religious bigotry will erase the truth. The First Amendment and the Statute for Religious Freedom protect the right of individuals to profess their faith in public. They do not protect a crowd from hearing about an individual’s faith.

Once again our sacred rights are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Unfortunately, expunging our religious heritage from the public square seems all too in vogue in 21st century America, with elected officials and their political appointees leading the way. In the name of tolerance, public faith is not tolerated. While we would hope that Virginia’s rich heritage of freedom would insulate us from such discrimination, recent history proves this not to be the case.

  STATEMENT BY VICTORIA COBB, PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, CONCERNING THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT’S REVIEW OF VIRGINIA’S PARTIAL BIRTH INFANTICIDE LAW

Virginia’s ban on partial-birth infanticide is substantially similar to a law already upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case deserved a full hearing and review by more than three judges. It is unfortunate that our federal judiciary has judges who continue to ignore the plain language of the law in favor of a political agenda, but our strong belief remains that this law is completely constitutional and will be upheld.

Anyone in the courtroom this morning heard the ridiculous equivocation by the abortion industry over whether the words of the Virginia statute are identical to the words of the federal law and, incredibly, how far out of the womb a fully formed child has to be before it can be killed. Over 90 percent of Americans are opposed to abortion at this late stage and would be shocked that a conversation over this barbaric procedure is taking place in an American courtroom.  

Virginians are well-aware of the barbarity of this procedure and they support the ban in overwhelming numbers. They also understand the role judges have played in allowing it to continue. For many voters, the issue of judges will determine their decision on election day.

One of the many legislative victories of which we have been a part during recent years, and one in which we are most proud, is the 2007 eminent domain reform law. Proud for a number of reasons: It righted a grievous wrong and demonstrated that when we stand on principle and work hard, much can be accomplished; we were part of a large coalition that fought the entrenched corporate and bureaucratic interests and proved that good really can come out of the legislative system; and because so many of you faithfully stayed engaged and kept up the pressure on legislators as the story of the legislation took more twists in the tale than the Crooked Road in our Great Southwest.

Bills patroned by Senators Ken Cuccinelli (R-37, Fairfax), Mark Obenshain (R-26, Harrisonburg), Steve Newman (R-23, Forest), Delegates Rob Bell (R-58, Charlottesville) and Johnny Joannou (D-79, Portsmouth), and others helped overturn the effects of the deplorable Kelo vs. New London, Conn. decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which allowed governments to take private property, often family owned homes and businesses, and give it to large corporations. The bills were passed — after much redrafting and debate (one powerful senator said property rights are not in the constitution!) — by overwhelming majorities in both chambers and signed into law, somewhat reluctantly, and with a few slight amendments, by Governor Tim Kaine.

While the law has immensely improved property protections for Virginia families who own homes and family-owned businesses, it still doesn’t go far enough as evidenced by “quick takes” of local governing bodies. Nor are its protections fool-proof since a future General Assembly can change the law. Don’t think it can happen? Jeremy Hopkins, in a study he authored for the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, documents Virginia’s lapse from a leading private property state that cherished and constitutionally protected individual property rights, to one of the weakest in the union prior to the 2007 legislation (click here). (This study was the “Bible” for those of us who worked on this bill in 2007. The state’s power over the fruits of you labor will frighten you.) 

Hopkins underscores the foundational importance of private property rights to a democratic society:

Finally, the right to private property undergirds and protects all other rights. It truly is “the guardian of every other right.” A cursory review of the Bill of Rights reveals that many of the rights Americans cherish have little significance without the recognition and protection of private property. Not only do many of these rights presume the right to private property, but these rights have little meaning without the right to private property.

For instance, what good is the right to free speech if one has no property from which to speak freely? What good is the right to free speech if the government owns all printing presses and all means of recording, producing, and dispensing speech? What good is the right to assemble and petition the government if one has no property on which to freely assemble and petition? What good is the right to worship freely if one has no property on which to freely worship? What good is the right to worship freely if the state owns the church, employs the clergymen, and prints all religious material?

For an absolute guarantee of secure property rights in Virginia tougher measures are needed and they need to be put into the constitution. Some of the same lawmakers noted above are interested in proposing such an amendment this coming session. It’s never too early to encourage your delegates and senators to support such constitutional protections (click here). 

To get an update on the status of eminent domain in Virginia — and your rights — read this post and hear this interview with Hopkins from the blog Tertium Quids (click here). Just as with any right, to secure it, we must stay informed and active.

Welcome to part two of our exclusive interview with United States Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), one of America’s pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional values leaders. In the first part, we got the senator’s thoughts on how to win “red” states, the financial crisis, the Supreme Court and on Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

In part two, we ask him about embryonic stem cell research, church leaders speaking out on public policy and politics, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (see new video), his friendship with Senator McCain and the pending new HHS medical provider conscience regulations. We hope you will enjoy part two and the entire interview. We are pleased to have brought it to you. Let us know what you think with your comments. 

familyfoundationblog.com: Senator McCain has supported embryonic stem cell research in the past. Catholic teaching opposes the destruction of embryos, which happens when the stem cells are extracted from them. Has his position on this made you uncomfortable at all in your support of him? Have new developments which make adult stem cells act as embryonic stem cells had an impact on his thinking? Also, since embryonic stem cell research has not yielded one medical breakthrough, while there have been dozens from adult stem cell research — how has all this affected Senator McCain’s thinking on the subject, if at all?

Senator Brownback: I think with the new developments in stem cell research, we are reaching the days when embryonic stem cell research is rendered moot, and John McCain has repeatedly pointed out the successes in non-embryonic stem cell research.    

familyfoundationblog.com: Are the Catholic bishops correct in their outspokenness and in taking so bold a stand or should Church leaders of all faiths stay quiet on issues of governance? To what degree should Catholic and Christian voters look to their bishops and pastors for guidance in voting?

Senator Brownback: Church leaders should lead the Church. I leave it to their discretion how they choose to do that. 

familyfoundationblog.com: What did you think of the two presidential candidates’ performances at Pastor Rick Warren’s “Saddleback Forum”? What impressed and/or concerned you about some of their answers to Rev. Warren’s questions?

Senator Brownback: I think John McCain proved, again, that he is the right candidate for values voters. Anyone watching the forum could see that John McCain will lead the country in the right direction. 

familyfoundationblog.com: How far did the selection of Governor Sarah Palin go toward bringing pro-life, pro-family voters back toward Senator McCain?

Senator Brownback:Governor Palin really energized the pro-life and pro-family base of the party. She has brought out huge crowds and has really amped up the excitement level. Governor Palin is a real-life example of values voters’ ideals. She has a beautiful child with Down Syndrome, which is something to be celebrated. Eighty to 90 percent of women who find out their unborn baby may have Down Syndrome choose to end the pregnancy. Governor Palin has reminded us all that being pro-life and pro-family is something to be celebrated.     

familyfoundationblog.com: What did you know about her previously and what have you learned about her since that adds to your belief she’ll make a great vice president?

Senator Brownback:Governor Palin is known as the most popular governor in America. And she brings critically important and historically relevant executive experience to the ticket. With 75 percent of this year’s presidential and vice presidential candidates being male senators, it is remarkably valuable to have on the ticket a woman who has executive experience.    

familyfoundationblog.com: The Department of Health and Human Services is considering new rules on “Provider Conscience” regulations so medical professionals and hospitals who don’t believe in abortion and other things contrary to their faith do not have to provide those services. What is the status of those proposals, do you think they will get approved and how will they be an improvement over the current rules? Does Senator McCain support these new proposed rules?

Senator Brownback: For more than thirty years, the letter and the spirit of federal law has required that medical providers not be discriminated against for refusing to perform abortions if they have moral or religious objections to abortion. The HHS regulations under consideration are intended to support this law against such discrimination. Like John McCain, I have defended conscience protection laws in the past. Medical workers should be free to choose to stay true to the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm.” 

familyfoundationblog.com: Senator Brownback, thank you very much for taking your valuable time to provide Virginians with your thoughts on these paramount issues concerning life and traditional values, when so many critical issues face Congress. We look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

Senator Brownback: Thank you, I enjoyed visiting with you. And for more information on John McCain, please go online to catholics.johnmccain.com or johnmccain.com/phonebank

Welcome to part one of our exclusive interview with United States Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS). In this first part, we get the senator’s thoughts on how to win “red” states, the financial crisis, the Supreme Court and his thoughts on Republican presidential candidate John McCain. We hope you enjoy reading through this and leave us your comments. Part two will appear tomorrow.

familyfoundationblog.com: Senator Brownback, thank you for taking our questions today. It is a real honor to have you appear on www.familyfoundationblog.com, as it were. We’re not quite a year old, but already are one of the most read Virginia public policy and politics blogs, and we know thousands of voters are looking forward to reading this interview. You are the first federal office holder to do an interview with us and the first non-Virginia politician. Congratulations . . . a couple of career firsts you probably never expected. ; – )

Hope that doesn’t add any pressure . . . are you ready for some questions?

Senator Brownback: I am ready for some questions, and I thank you for talking with me today. 

familyfoundationblog.com: What is at stake for pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional values voters in this election?

Senator Brownback: Much is at stake for values voters in this election. For example, let’s consider the courts. People need to look at each candidate and assess the type of judges he will appoint to the Supreme Court. John McCain will nominate conservative judges who will not legislate from the bench. I think values voters understand how important it is that the next president might nominate as many as 3-4 new justices to the Supreme Court. Who sits in the Oval Office may determine whether Roe v. Wade is finally overturned.    

familyfoundationblog.com: Are the stakes higher than normal given other significant issues, including the economy and the Wall Street financial crisis? Can you give us an outline as to how you think the final legislation will look when eventually passed? (Note: This was asked before the final votes in the House and Senate.) 

Senator Brownback: Negotiations over legislation to help ease the credit crunch are still on-going so I won’t speculate on what the final package may look like. I will say that the stakes are always high when electing a new president. Each voter must be informed about the issues and truly understand the power of his or her vote. Our nation is facing financial hard times, and John McCain has proven over the years that he has the leadership experience to lead America through such difficult times. 

familyfoundationblog.com: Why do you think states such as Virginia, which normally are safe “red” states, are up for grabs this campaign?

Senator Brownback: I think we do ourselves a disservice when we think that any states are ‘safe.’ Each election cycle, both parties need to actively demonstrate to the voters what they stand for and how they will help the county. I hope Virginians take a good look at the two candidates and recognize that John McCain really would best represent them, both in social policy and fiscal policy.    

familyfoundationblog.com: You are recognized as a prominent national leader in the pro-life movement. When you ended your own presidential campaign earlier this year, you soon endorsed John McCain. What is it about Senator McCain that makes you think he is the best man to be our 44th president?

Senator Brownback: John McCain has proven time and again that he is a great leader who always puts country first. He is a brave war hero, who even as a young man demonstrated a very strong sense of patriotism. And during his tenure in the United States Senate, John McCain has shown that he is a man willing to reach across the aisle and work with is colleagues on the other side. I’ve seen first hand John McCain’s willingness to lead and stand up for what he thinks is right. All of these are very important qualities for the next president.     

familyfoundationblog.com: You are national co-chairman of Catholics For McCain. At one time, Senator McCain and some pro-life Christian leaders in Virginia didn’t see eye-to-eye. Are pro-life Christians comfortable with Senator McCain now? Why should Catholics and other pro-traditional values voters vote for Senator McCain?

Senator Brownback: Pro-life voters should vote for John McCain because John McCain is pro-life. Unlike some who talk about promoting a culture of life, Senator McCain has the record to prove it. He has voted to confirm strong conservative judicial nominees like Justices Roberts and Alito.