The following article was published on InsideCatholic.com on March 13.

A few years ago, I met a woman I will never forget. Sally Savery was a waitress in Wamego, Kansas, who had recently gone through a divorce and bankruptcy. Through a twist a fate, she had met a missionary from Brazil and was inspired by the woman’s story to travel back with her. After saving up the money to travel to Brazil, Sally worked at the mission, serving local poor children.

When Sally returned home, her life had changed forever. She resolved to raise money for those poor children and returned to Brazil a year later to continue serving them. Through Sally, those children received medical care, better food, love, and encouragement. But through those children, Sally saw her own life in a new light.

I can speak to something similar. In 2003, I visited the refugee camps in Darfur, Sudan. The refugees I met were victims of the brutal war of extermination the Sudanese government continues to wage on its citizens. The children I met — seemingly at peace and full of joy, despite the devastation — amazed me. They sang and danced and were joyful and smiling, teaching me a great lesson: Joy is possible even in the face of unthinkable evil.

Those images and those faces have stayed with me. You can’t come back from a trip like that without realizing how much you have compared with those who are suffering. Your heart grows larger, with a greater capacity to love.

Once you see it, you realize you’ve got to do something. This is why I encourage people to take “impact trips” to parts of our country or the world where there is hardship. While foreign aid is vital and necessary, Americans taking impact trips can make a great difference, for others and for themselves.

You can take a cruise or a ski trip, and a fleeting memory will remain with you. An impact trip to Rwanda, however, will change your life forever. It will give you a profound sense of the reality and immediacy of the need of others. You will also discover that, in serving, one experiences a profound sense of joy.

In my opportunities to visit with so many wonderful people in my state and across our nation, many have expressed a desire to do more for those suffering from the harsh realities of disease, religious persecution, lack of clean water or adequate food, and genocide. Young people especially show immense interest in the causes of suffering and are eager to find solutions. They are the most effective agents of change. The idealism of youth is a great gift; they are impatient for a better world, and they understand that they will be the ones who achieve it.

While we may not all be able to go to Darfur, there are places we can go. You don’t have to commit two years of your life to the Peace Corps to make a difference, although it’s a wonderful thing for those who are able. Even a relatively short trip can help those in difficulty in our cities or in rural poverty — while giving us the opportunity to help people build a better life for themselves, to interact with local community members, and to get a chance not to only see another culture but to understand it on a much deeper level.

In my family’s case, we have made a point of setting aside time on our vacations to work together on building a house with Habitat for Humanity or volunteering in an inner-city service project. Our help was small, but its impact on our family was significant.

When you live with people for a while, you begin to understand the challenges they face and the ways they try to alleviate them. Make no mistake, what you will see will be challenging, but it will also profoundly change your perspective.

Impact trips ignite a passion for service and a greater solidarity with the downtrodden. These trips humanize the suffering people we hear so much about but often feel so powerless to help. Few vacations provide a way to bond so closely with local cultures and peoples in so short a time. It is an opportunity to step beyond ourselves, to bring change to a dire situation.

“There is joy in overcoming self to serve others,” as Mother Teresa once said. A friend of mine says, “If you save a life, you save the world,” because you can never know the limitless potential of the human spirit. One child whose life is saved may one day develop a new technology that makes the world a better place. Every life is so incredible; that’s why the best way to serve God is to serve others.

In fact, in serving others, the life you end up saving may be our own.

The following op-ed appeared in the March 2. 2008 edition of the New York Times.

A Family Crisis
By SAM BROWNBACK

THIS was the central idea I tried to bring to the presidential race: we need to rebuild the family and renew the culture in America.

Marriage is in crisis. Divorce and adultery, cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births, and a mentality that views children as a burden are all part of the problem.

Over the past five decades in the United States, the marriage rate has gone down and the divorce rate has gone up. In 1960, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 5 percent. Now it is 37 percent. While you can valiantly raise a good child in another setting and we ought to celebrate it when it happens, the best way to rear a child is between a mom and dad bonded together for life.

Children brought up with a mom and dad bonded in marriage are, on average, far more likely to succeed in school, avoid crime and live happier and healthier lives. The best way to reduce poverty, fight crime and improve education is to rebuild the family.

Families should be able to keep more of what they earn and have more options in terms of education. We need to enact common sense measures to restrict abortion, encourage adoption and promote abstinence. We need to encourage broadcast decency and to address the effects of violence and pornography on our culture.

We need a culture that knows right from wrong, encourages virtue and discourages vice.

While I realize these topics can be very personal and difficult to talk about, that does not mean we can ignore them. The future of our land depends in large part upon the strength of our families and our culture.

Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

The following column appeared on February 5, 2008 in the National Catholic Register.

Pro-Lifers Can Trust McCain
BY Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan.

February 3-9, 2008 Issue |
Posted 2/5/08 at 9:57 AM

I have been heartened to see such a lively discussion among people of faith regarding the presidential election. Many are rightly concerned about how best to ensure the protection of life, rebuild the family and renew the culture in America.

I was disappointed, however, to read Mark Stricherz write in the Register last week that “McCain Sits Down for Life.” I found his column to be an unfair characterization of a man I have come to know and admire for many years.

I am convinced that John McCain is our best hope to advance the cause of human dignity on a broad spectrum of life issues. He is a true American hero, a consistent social and fiscal conservative, and most ready to be commander-in-chief.

Perhaps most important, however, John McCain is the best pro-life candidate to win in 2008.

Sen. McCain has a long, consistent 24-year pro-life voting record. Long before he decided to run for president, John McCain opposed abortion, fought to restrict it and supported overturning Roe v. Wade. He is no Johnny-come-lately to the cause.

John McCain is not pro-life out of convenience, but based on principle.

John supports a ban on all forms of human cloning and will fight to sign it into law. He has been on the cutting-edge of the fight to deal with explicit material on the Internet and protecting our children from a coarsening of the culture. He understands that America needs a culture willing to sacrifice to advance in our long-term struggle with Islamic extremists.

In 1993, John and his wife Cindy adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. John and I share a commitment to promoting adoption in this country, and each of us knows from experience what a blessing an adopted child can be.

John has been endorsed by a number of pro-life stalwarts, including former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, famed Notre Dame law professor Gerald Bradley, and by former spokeswoman for the U.S. bishops, Cathy Ruse. All have come to know John McCain as a man of principle, consistently committed to building a culture that values life.

I have long said that the future of the cause of life is tied to our ability to ground our conviction about the sanctity of life in the truth of our shared human dignity. The best way I have found to express this is to say that we strive to be “pro-life and whole-life.”

Of all the candidates running for president, I am convinced that John McCain is the best candidate to advance this message.

From abortion to immigration to the dignified treatment of military detainees, John McCain remains committed to the truth of human dignity. He knows from experience what it means for a society to trample on the truth of the value of the human person. He is committed to defending the dignity and value of every person, regardless of their status.

John McCain is today and has always been opposed to abortion. But to be pro-life is much more than to be anti-abortion. John understands, like few others, that we must ground our pro-life conviction in the cause of human dignity and human rights.

For him, every life, here and around the world, whatever its status, is beautiful and precious, a child of a loving God.

In elections, there are no perfect candidates. In this election, however, there is a man of whom we can be proud. John McCain understands that long before he can win your vote, he must win your trust. Sen. McCain has earned the trust of the American people, and I am doing all I can to see that he also earns their vote.

As John often says, there is no greater honor than to serve a cause greater than your own self-interest. For his entire life, John McCain has served causes greater than himself. It remains my great honor, and, as I see it, my duty to support John McCain as the best pro-life candidate for president in 2008.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan.,
is a leading pro-life voice in the U.S. Senate.

The following column by Senator Brownback appeared on InsideCatholic.com

The Place of Religion in Public Life
by Sam Brownback
1/30/08

As questions abound concerning the role of religious faith in the political process, it seems an apt time to reflect on the proper place of religion in our American culture. Few issues in recent years have been as controversial or have evoked as much heartfelt emotion on all sides of the question.

I believe a full examination of the issue is helpful, both to calm fears and reflect positively on the possibility of a harmonious relationship between church and state.

There are some assumptions in politics that seem to persist despite all the evidence against them. The notions that religious conservatives are trying to impose their faith on the country or that Christianity poses a threat to liberty are often accepted as facts without a great deal of questioning. This seems to me far from the truth of the matter, however.

In my experience, it simply isn’t the case that people of faith are trying to impose their faith upon anyone. Rather, they — like everyone involved with public life — simply put forth a particular vision of how we ought to order our lives together. Far from threatening liberty, this can be an essential part of it.

At the outset, it is necessary to be clear about what sort of relationship of church and state we are not after. Let me be as clear as possible: I am not in favor of a theocracy. That would be bad for religion and bad for government. The separation of church and state should not mean, however, the exclusion of faith from public life.

Religious believers should not be excluded from the public debate. Rather, all people should be allowed to bring their vision to the table. Indeed, it is essential to include those who can ground their arguments not simply in terms of interest-group politics but in a vision of human dignity and its transcendent character.

For this reason, Christians should not be forced to leave their faith at the doorstep of public life. In fact, the contribution they can and should make to the political process demands that people of faith bring into the public realm their beliefs about the dignity of the human person, the importance of marriage for a virtuous society, and the need to work on behalf of the weak and vulnerable. An authentic faith will never persecute anyone, since at its core it respects the essential dignity and religious freedom of all human beings.

I believe, in fact, that we should celebrate faith, not denigrate it. Faith is a good thing. It commits people to justice in the public square. In a word, it helps people to love.

Where would we be if people of faith like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Teresa remained at the doorstep of public life? Instead, we are better off when people of faith take seriously the commandment to love thy neighbor and offer proposals for how we ought to order our lives together.

I want to go even further, however. I think the public square has to be a place that not only allows faith but encourages it. A society based solely on reason, without any reference to transcendent faith, has been tried — and has utterly failed. The great threat of the second half of the 20th century — atheistic communism — has shown you cannot ground a society on human reason alone. It will close man in on himself instead of directing him outward in love.

In a sermon some years ago, the Senate chaplain asked the members of Congress how many constituents we had. He suggested that we really only have one constituent — God. It made me wonder what sorts of things God would be interested in. What concerns would He have?

I imagine God would be concerned with the poor and the downtrodden, with the situation in Darfur or the human-rights violations in North Korea. It is faith that invites us to broaden our area of concern, purifies our reason, and compels us to action.

Finally, there is something profound that people of faith can teach all of us. In the midst of a world of so much suffering, faith reveals that death might not get the last word. The temptation in politics can be toward hopelessness and cynicism that any real progress can be made.

Authentic faith is an affirmation that God Himself is not indifferent to human suffering, and, in the end, every tear will be wiped away. The gift of hope should be the first of many gifts people of faith offer to a world where it is so needed. That’s a proposal that will be hard to pass up.

The following op-ed by Senator Brownback appeared in the Washington Times on January 22, 2008.

Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. It is both a sober occasion—given the untold suffering it has wrought—and at the same time a moment of hope for the future.

Some 45 million lives have been taken and an equal number of women have been damaged and exploited in mind and body since January 22, 1973. Far from bringing what the decision promised—liberation for women and an end to the contentious national debate—Roe v. Wade has further divided our land and enslaved us all to an ideology so aptly dubbed a “culture of death.”

The March for Life today is however an occasion of real hope. Once again hundreds of thousands of Americans will travel to Washington, D.C. to stand up for the dignity and beauty of every life.

Who could fail to be moved that so many will travel so far simply to stand for the worth of every life? Young and old alike will come to give voice to the voiceless, defend the defenseless, and affirm the dignity of each human person.

I am grateful today to our President and to the United States Senate for confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last April, the Court reversed a previous ruling and upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. We must work hard to ensure that such progress is not lost in 2008 and elect a pro-life President to end the night of wrong that is Roe v. Wade.

We now live in a majority pro-life country. More and more, our people have come to realize that America is better than abortion on demand. It promised liberty but has brought only slavery and death.

True respect for human life and dignity requires that we stand with women, particularly in difficult or unexpected pregnancies, and say that abortion is always violence and never the answer.

We have seen great progress of late in biotechnology, the latest front in the fight for the sanctity of life. Recent developments creating induced pluripotent stem cells reveal we can do the most promising research, respect human dignity, and seek cures that everyone can live with. We can still aim for a society where the strong protect the weak, and we cherish the youngest members of the human family, not research upon them.

I take it on good authority that “where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.” To my mind this has been so true in the struggle to promote a culture that values life. There are those who have worked tirelessly at crisis pregnancy centers, support groups, or in political action.

There are the so many young people—perhaps the majority at today’s March for Life—who give such hope to this movement and to me personally.

I think of the great heroes of the cause of life; Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul the Great, and the late Congressman Henry Hyde. How blessed have we been to have lived in the era of such giants in this monumental struggle? Even today God is raising up new saints to stand for the cause of life.

Despite our hope for a bright future of cultural renewal, we know that shadows remain. A nation that does not value the union of marriage from which life springs cannot fully affirm or value human life. A nation that does not see that love-making and life-making go together will be hard pressed to build a solid foundation for the culture of life.

Likewise, those who affirm life in the womb must be equally willing to fight for life outside it. I am convinced that the most solid basis for an ethic of human rights and human dignity is what I call being pro-life and whole-life.

This ethic suggests that every life, at every stage, in every place is a beautiful, precious, sacred child of a loving God. It applies of course to the child in the womb and to the child in Darfur. It includes the man in prison and the woman in poverty. It does not fail to cherish the child with Down syndrome or stand for the inherent dignity of the immigrant.

Being pro-life and whole-life is an expansive and inclusive view that is the future of this great movement. It is a cause that is just and a hope that springs eternal.

I believe that America’s best days are still ahead, for the cause of human dignity cannot be silenced. The strength of America’s people, particularly her young people, shines forth as a light that cannot be darkened. It is a light of hope that will not be overcome.

by Sam Brownback

This article originally appeared in CNSNews.

“Joy to the World” sings the old Christmas carol. In a tiny manger, away from the seats of power and riches, a tiny baby was born to a virgin girl. And, miracle of miracles, it was God himself who had entered into the human story.

It is good to remember at this time of the year that the Christian understanding of joy is distinct from the pursuit of pleasure, something that has become a full-time avocation for all too many of us.

Many in my generation, the baby boomers, have pursued pleasure, and they’ve found it. But ultimately, we realize, mere pleasure does not satisfy the deepest yearnings of the soul.

So now we’re after something more profound and ultimately more satisfying — true joy. And I think that’s actually more in keeping with our times and this season. The song is “Joy to the World,” not “Pleasure to the World” after all.

What is this understanding of joy? Even though pleasure and joy may sound like the same thing, they’re not. Once you consume pleasure, the feeling goes away, but joy constantly gives back. Pleasure fades, but joy is constant and ongoing.

As we approach this Christmas season, we might recall that the events recounted in the Gospel narratives have a profound effect on how we view the world. These events bring firstly to our awareness a wonder at the dignity of every human person.

God himself has become man, taken on our human flesh. Christmas, the Christian argues, not only tells us the truth about God — that He is always seeking us and will go to any lengths to draw near to us — but also the truth about man. The supreme dignity of the human person-from the child in the womb to the child in Darfur — springs from amazement at how precious and beautiful is each human person.

Christmas ought also to teach us to have a great love for the poor, assisting those in difficult circumstances. This season makes real the interconnectedness of the human family and our responsibility for each other. Perhaps most of all though, this time of year invites a change in perspective.

Too many of us are chasing after fulfillment in our jobs or possessions and not spending enough time with our families. Yet, we know deep down, lasting joy will not be found there. As the common saying goes, no one says on their death bed, “I wish I had spent more time at work.” Hearts will remain restless until they are set on lasting joys: loving God and serving others.

It is in many ways life’s great paradox: we seek pleasure but do not find it; we seek comfort and are restless. Yet, when we abstain from passing pleasures, we find joy.

It is also the paradox of Christmas. Wise men set out in search of a king and they find a child wrapped in swaddling clothes. God promises a liberator and He offers an infant. Christmas suggest that happiness is found where we least expect it.

Our effort, perhaps especially at this time of year, is to change the formula “from dust to dust” to something more permanent…like love. Ultimately, it is love that is great instrument of conversion from passing pleasure to true joy. Our lives at the end, as Mother Teresa observed, will not be measured by what we accumulate, but by “how much we love and are loved.”

And that’s where joy comes in. You cannot actually seek joy. Instead, it finds you when you do the right thing, like small acts of kindness or self-sacrifice.

For instance, why is it more blessed to give than to receive? Because when we give out of love for another — the right motive — we are sure to receive joy as a byproduct.

So this Christmas season, the invitation is to the same paradox. If in fact we do what we know we should this time of year, call a friend in need, contact a family member from whom we are disconnected, or make someone’s Christmas a little more bright, we are sure to receive a greater gift in return. These simple but profound actions will yield much joy for the recipient and for you for an eternity.

It is indeed joy which has come to our broken world, a joy that will not pass away.

National Journal published an interview with Senator Brownback today.

“[Running for president] lets you understand the country better, understand people and their plights in different places better, and broadens your perspective when you’re looking at the issues nationwide.”

– Sam Brownback

Here are some excerpts from the interview.

On his favorite memory from the campaign trail:

One of my favorite ones is right before the first debate in Simi Valley, the Reagan Library. There are media trucks all around, big buildup to this being the first debate. Nancy Reagan’s there, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s a gorgeous setting.

I’m a first-time presidential candidate, and this is the first debate. It’s kind of a jittery season, although I didn’t have that, and I was very thankful I didn’t. And just ahead of the debate, they cleared the room out. It was just my wife and I there. I remember looking over at her and seeing her as my young bride — we’ve been married 25 years — but I saw her as my young bride, and both of us looking at each other: “Can you believe we’re here?”

And yet, it didn’t seem all that strange. The God we serve does great things, so that somebody that’s the son of a farmer can run for president of the United States. It’s just not that extraordinary. But you think about it, and it really is an extraordinary thing — that anybody in this country can aspire to run for president and be president and actually do it.

On Teaming Up with Joe Biden in Iowa regarding the War in Iraq:

The country wants to see the government work for them. We have been in a particularly difficult and partisan season. I think that the country’s hungry to see the government work for them. That event, I think, was a novelty, but it also was on a big topic. People are saying, “That’s what I want to see taking place. People working together to get something done that’s significant.”

And I would think some of the other presidential candidates would look at that and say, that should tell them something about where the country is right now. You can find these zones of things people can work together on to get things done. And I think the candidate that can legitimately tap into that is going to have a leg up in the race.

On Meeting with Rudy Giuliani:

It was a very good meeting, a very engaging gentleman. I thought their campaign particularly played it well. I said I’ll meet with anybody that wants to meet with me, and they were on it. And then I got a lot of pushback from people saying, “You’re not going to endorse Rudy Giuliani, are you?” And I didn’t, obviously.

But we had a very engaging meeting, and I ended the meeting with one of the press people saying, “Can you support and endorse a pro-choice candidate?” And I said “I don’t know that Mayor Giuliani would describe himself as a pro-choice candidate.” And I turned to the mayor, and he told me he was against federal funding of abortion, he would appoint strict constructionists to the judiciary — a number of things that wouldn’t be seen as a pro-choice position, particularly relative to Democrat pro-choice candidates. And he didn’t say one way or another, but to me, that was one of the striking pieces of the conversation — the number of issues we agreed upon on the narrow, specific issues surrounding the right-to-life issue.

On endorsing Senator John McCain over Mike Huckabee:

I looked and I thought about all the candidates a lot. I prayed about it, and for me it really came down to Mike Huckabee and John McCain. But I really felt that John was the one that could best compete and win ultimately in the fall of 2008.

I think he’s the most qualified person running now, ready to be president. He’s ready to be commander in chief. He has foreign policy experience. He’s a budget hawk, has been for a long time. He has a 20-year pro-life voting record. And he can perform in swing states. He can win in Florida. He can win in Missouri. He can win in Ohio. And we’ve got to have somebody that can perform in swing states. He can win in Florida. He can win in Missouri. He can win in Ohio. And we’ve got to have somebody that can perform in those states. So that’s why it came down to John for me.

Make sure to read the entire interview here.

By Sam Brownback
FIRST THINGS
Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Sometimes political discussions get so bogged down that people’s views get set in stone. With advocates on both sides of a contentious issue preaching to the choir, the hope of actually persuading anyone diminishes as each side’s talking points become more predictable. But sometimes the facts on the ground change in a way that alters a debate overnight.

The recent news that the promise of stem cell research can be pursued without using human embryos has permanently and dramatically changed the stem cell debate.

The starting point in the debate over embryonic stem cell research focuses on the status of the youngest of humans: Is it a person or a piece of property? But the prospect of exciting new research and medical treatments made this a very difficult question.

When I entered the United States Senate in 1996, I had no idea that I would eventually consider stem cell research as one of the most important policy issues in which I am involved. In fact, I do not think I had even heard of stem cells.

The isolation of embryonic stem cells by Dr. James Thomson in 1998 put the issue of stem cell research on the map. Although he never banned this research outright, President Bush limited federal funding for research to the embryonic stem cell lines that existed before August 2001, thus drawing a line at destroying human embryos created after that date. He supported legislation that I co-sponsored that would fund the banking of umbilical-cord blood, in addition to efforts to fund adult stem cell research and alternatives that would not destroy human embryos.

While President Bush stood firm, the issue of stem cell research appeared to be a political winner for Democrats and to pit the claims of science against strict ethical guidelines.

But the facts on the ground have changed. The same Dr. James Thomson, in addition to other scientists working independently, recently published studies arguing that science can pursue the most promising stem cell research without killing, or even using, human embryos. This new approach is so promising that Ian Wilmut, the scientist who cloned the sheep Dolly, announced that he would not move forward with human cloning.

This shifts the debate fundamentally. Those who had moral reservations about research on the youngest of humans but were persuaded of the need to pursue treatments can now support this promising research without compromising their pro-life conviction. At the same time, those who claimed that embryonic research was the only promising way forward can unite around a promising new technique that presents no ethical dilemmas.

What the vast majority of Americans want is now possible: the pursuit of promising research that does not cross ethical lines, honors human dignity, and preserves innocent life.

This does not mark the end of the stem cell debate. In the coming weeks, I will work with my Senate colleagues on possible ways to allocate funding for this approach and for other research that seeks ethical cures we can be proud of. I will continue to push for a ban on all forms of human cloning, a practice that demeans the dignity of the human person.

The irony is that opponents of embryonic stem cell research were considered to be anti-science or behind the times. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research were thought to be in a long line of pioneers fighting the restraints of religious doctrine to push forward with scientific research.

Instead, quite the opposite is the case. The new research shows that science and morality need not be pitted against each another. Still less, the promise of cures for disease need not be pitted against the infinite value of the youngest of human lives.

Rather, what we knew in our hearts all along has turned out to be true. The strong ought to protect the weak and science is not to be feared, nor is it to be worshiped, but rather it should be regulated by sound ethical guidelines. In doing so, science has shown the path forward: ethical research, promising science, and cures everyone can live with.

Sam Brownback is the senior U.S. senator for Kansas.

The following op-ed by Senator Brownback appeared in the November 12 edition of the Washington Post.

Faith in a Winning Message

By Sam Brownback
Monday, November 12, 2007; A21

One of the great things about running for president is that you get a good sense of what Americans are thinking. I found a great love of our country and great concern for its future in the hearts of Americans.

There is, unfortunately, a lot of fear as well. There is apprehension about the war, the economy and health care. In particular, there is concern in many quarters about the future of the faith-based movement.

Message is all-important. I believe the biggest threat to our future as a movement is a negative public face, when we don’t project a welcoming and hopeful message based on an authentic faith. The future of the conservative movement in our country will be strong if we can be moved by genuine faith and love for mankind, but not by political power.

On the campaign trail I talked about being pro-life and whole-life. This is, first and foremost, recognition of the fundamental dignity of every human person. It says that every person, at every stage and in every place, is a beautiful and unique child of God. It says that every life, everywhere, has value and is worth fighting for.

I think this is a winning message. Unfortunately, the GOP primary process this year, as in times past, has been more focused on “electability” than message. I believe that’s the wrong focus.

Recent history has shown that, as a party, when we focus on message, we win; when we get bogged down with questions about which personality is most “electable,” we lose.

The pro-life message is both hopeful and winning. We know that America is better than abortion. We ought to work for a society where the strong protect the weak and every child, in every circumstance, is welcomed and cared for. The truth of our message is undermined, however, if we are not among the first to support adoption and assist pregnant women in difficult circumstances. We must support women in every way we can.

The pro-life and whole-life message does not stop with abortion. It embraces the child in Darfur, the woman struggling in poverty, the child born with Down syndrome, the man in prison and even the immigrant.

It has led me to spend nights in prisons in America and to visit homeless shelters, orphanages and refugee camps across the world. I have tried to understand the difficult circumstances in people’s lives and ways that we can help. Some of the most profound people I have met possess souls that radiate a beauty that comes from finding strength and hope amid hardships unimaginable to most Americans.

The fundamental truth of human dignity can shed light on every issue. It means that we should help the poor in America, reduce prison recidivism rates and fight addiction by helping others break the bonds they cannot break themselves.

It means we ought to stand for marriage as the unique bond that can bring new life into the world. It means we should have an economy that helps families, honors freedom and shows compassion to those in need.

This philosophy welcomes the immigrant and has mercy on the prisoner. While we must secure the border and enforce the law, we cannot forget that every immigrant, whatever his or her status, is a person with innate dignity. This is our duty to the “foreigner amongst us” (Deuteronomy 10:18). A wise man once told me that we get into trouble when we look at people as problems and not as people.

The same can be said for those in prison. While we must protect society and enforce our laws, the prisoner, too, is a child of a loving God. I am glad to support programs that help prisoners deal with their problems and ease their return to society so that they don’t find themselves back in jail. And unless society cannot otherwise be protected, we should not use the instrument of death but instead should seek to build a culture that values every life.

Human dignity has a significant bearing on the question of faith in the public square. I am convinced that a society that celebrates faith will have greater respect for human dignity. Atheistic communism ran counter to human nature when it tried to create a society without God. Such a society will never honor human dignity because it turns man in on himself, instead of outward in love.

The conservative movement in America will succeed to the degree that it is faith-filled. We must exude the virtues of authentic faith: joy, hope and love. Our movement must be more compassionate, loving and welcoming.

It doesn’t mean we abandon our principles. Of course we will continue to stand for life, marriage and faith in the public square. The question is whether we move forward as bold people of faith, focused on compassion instead of judgment and dedicating our daily lives to witnessing instead of winning.

The writer is a Republican senator from Kansas.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

The following is a transcript from Senator Sam Brownback’s speech on Friday, October 19th in Topeka, Kansas when he announced he is ending his presidential bid:

October 19, 2007
Topeka, Kansas

Today I am ending my candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for President.

I do so with great love for my country but the recognition that my yellow brick to the White House just cam up short this time.

It has been a fabulous journey for me and my family. So many people have helped us. My faith in the American people has grown. We are a blessed nation with a special mission.

Campaigns are about the future. I believe the person and the Party that offers the most hope and ideas for the future wins. We put forward ideas like a war on cancer, an optional flat tax, a three-state solution in Iraq, a return to family and a view that every human life, everywhere and at every stage is sacred, beautiful, and created in the image of God.

Our ideas haven’t won yet, but neither will they be forgotten. Perhaps they were for too far into the future, yet they remain ideals for an idealistic people.

I love especially the many young people that joined our effort. They are the future and on their idealism and faith, America will remain the “shining city on a hill.”

I leave this stage a better man and hopefully America a better place. I am amazed that a nation so powerful could allow the son of a Kansas farmer to even dream that he could lead it.

To my fellow Kansans, I thank you for the privilege of representing you in the US Senate. I am sorry and I apologize that this run for President has caused me to miss votes. I am back now and look forward to working with all of you to build a stronger Kansas.

Finally, I lament that campaigns too often focus on problems and never enough on how great a nation this is. We are the most powerful nation in the history of mankind…where we are today. And to whom much is given, much is required. Let us move forward humbled by how blessed we are and resolved that our best days are yet ahead.

Thank you and God bless.

###