No matter who fills this spot, that person will be proabortion.
Therefore, there is no moral decision to be made.
The decision to be made was “will you support ANY of them?” For Brownback, the answer, for his own purposes, turned out to be “yes.”
Any cooperation with evil, except to avoid an even worse, otherwise inevitable evil, is culpable. So Brownback needs to explain what worse alternative he avoided. Given that the pro-life faction is the minority we know in fact that there would have been no alternative, just a one-vote difference in her confirmation approval vote count.
Would it have been so difficult for Brownback to just say NOTHING?
That is the real crux of the problem here, there was NO REASON for Brownback to support her, if he simply wanted her out of Kansas that could have been accomplished by saying nothing.
Why are you so intent on supporting Brownback here? He had THREE CHOICES, he could oppose her, remain silent or support her; either of the first two would have been fine.
What will happen when the moderates in the GOP start saying, "If Sam Brownback can support a pro-abortion politician, it must not be that big a deal"?