Donald Trump recently nominated Omaha lawyer Brian Buescher to the United States District Court for Nebraska, which requires a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Buescher, who was Chair of both the Nebraska Bar Association’s Agricultural and Environmental Law Sections, and also served as a prosecutor for Douglas County and Omaha, is seemingly qualified to serve as a judge. But according to several pro-abortion senators, there’s a big problem: Buescher, a Catholic, is a member of the Knights of Columbus, and Buescher and the Knights are pro-life — which equals an “extremist” view that should evidently disqualify one from public service.
The written questions that raised eyebrows, which can be read here, were posed by Democrat Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono. Hirono’s very first question to Buescher noted that he is an “avidly pro-life person,” and that he called the Roe v. Wade decision “unfortunate.”
READ: Why I’m a pro-life activist
“Why did you consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade to be unfortunate?” she asked, before inquiring if he still felt the same way. She then noted, “you called abortion ‘immoral’ and stated unequivocally that you ‘will not compromise’ on abortion based on your ‘moral fabric.'” Hirono then asked, “If it remains in your ‘moral fabric’ that you ‘will not compromise’ on abortion, please explain why a woman looking to enforce her constitutional right to an abortion should have confidence that you will treat her fairly if you are confirmed as a judge.”
She even asked if he would recuse himself from any case relating to abortion should he be confirmed — yet his beliefs are the same as a majority of Americans.
Finally, Hirono brought up his membership with the Knights of Columbus, asking if he would end his membership and recuse himself from any cases in which the Knights have taken any position. This is noteworthy because, as a Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus advocates for pro-life positions — something Hirono herself specifically pointed out as a potential disqualifier.
Harris likewise slammed Buescher for his pro-life views, pointing out that he previously had said he would like to see abortion banned. She asked him to try to ascertain the motivations of Texas lawmakers when they put heavier restrictions on abortion in 2016, though he was not even involved with that bill. Harris then asked whether Buescher, who joined the Knights of Columbus in 1993 when he was 18, was “aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when [he] joined the organization.” She then asked if he agreed that abortion is “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and has “resulted in more than 40 million deaths,” and if he had ever participated in any pro-life advocacy at any time in his life.
This is not the first time abortion-supporting politicians have caused controversy over their hostile questioning towards pro-lifers. When Catholic judge Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the circuit court, her beliefs likewise came under fire. Speaking of Barrett’s Catholic beliefs and pro-life convictions, Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked, “Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”
READ: Looking for examples of pro-life feminism? Look at Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
While what Barrett and Buescher have in common is being Catholic, the notable issue here is that they are pro-life. Pro-abortion Democrats don’t typically attack Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or Methodists, for example. The issue at hand isn’t about being Christian; it’s about being pro-life. If Barrett or Buescher were Catholics in the vein of, say, Nancy Pelosi, who is strongly pro-abortion, Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono would surely have no issues whatsoever.
The point being made is clearly that people who are pro-life are not fit to hold public office, because the most important thing for these abortion activists is protecting abortion.
