With all the umbrage by the likes of Barney Frank about reining in executive compensation, a reasonable question to ask is, “What kind of value are we getting for the $174,000 per year that we pay each and every Congressman and Senator?” If these people worked for me in private industry, I would fire them in a heartbeat. Lest it be thought that I am just raging at my television set over the nightly news, let me relate a more personal experience.
Writing your Congressman
I wrote to my congressman expressing my opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act, the purpose of which is to codify Roe v. Wade. I received a letter back from my Congressman with these dubious points:
- “As a practicing Catholic, a husband, and a father…I strongly believe that women in America must have the legal right to choose an abortion.”
- “Legislating the outcome of this decision would be an undue intrusion on the rights of women, as well as the confidential relationship between doctor and patient.”
- “Outlawing the operation will not end the practice of abortion in America, but rather force it underground and expose women to unacceptable health risks.”
- “I share your concerns about late-term abortions, and have said that I would support a ban on late-term abortions if it includes an exception that encompasses the life and health {emphasis added} of the mother.”
Responding to the Congressman
Although writing to your Congressman is supposed to be the way to express your views other than biennially at the voting booth, I have always been skeptical about the practice. My view is that if the Congressman is of the same political philosophy they might give your letter some weight and try to gain your support ($). If on the other hand your philosophies diverge, they will likely find a bland polite response from their database of responses, just to make you feel like they care what you have to say.
I felt compelled to respond to the Congressman because his logic seemed both contradictory and flawed. Here is my response:
Dear Congressman,
Thank you for your response to my communication to you regarding the Freedom of Choice Act. While I understand your positions, I feel compelled to challenge your reasoning.
You state:
“I strongly believe that women in America must have the legal right to choose an abortion, with the advice of their doctors and trusted confidantes. Legislating the outcome of this decision would be an undue intrusion on the rights of women.
The fundamental argument that makes this a controversial issue is when does life begin? Are there just the mother and a clump of cells involved, or are there two human beings involved?
Let’s examine your position from the context of the first point. If it is just a woman and a clump of unwanted cells, you say government should not intrude. However many people who share your beliefs feel that it is perfectly alright to intrude all the time, where the consequences are even less grave. An individual wants to ride their bicycle and feel the wind through their hair but the government steps in and says no, you can’t do that, you must wear a helmet. Why? Who is affected other than the bicycle rider? No one. Yet government can step in and say no. An individual wants to drive their car without wearing a seat belt, and the government steps in and says no, you can’t do that. Who is affected other than the unbelted person? No one. Yet the government can step in and say no.
Now in the case of abortion, while I can understand the arguments on both sides, and the real reasons behind them, cases of botched abortions where the child lived are proof enough that this involves more than a single individual, but you say government shouldn’t intrude to protect a human life. Government can dictate to an individual how they can live their own life, but it is out of bounds to protect the lives of the innocent?
You state:
“Outlawing the operation will not end the practice of abortion in America, but rather force it underground and expose women to unacceptable health risks.”
Can’t the same be said of outlawing murder? Outlawing murder hasn’t ended it. So should we legalize murder? Perhaps we can set up murder centers so it can be done cleanly and painlessly. We should really fight to stop back alley murders.
You say:
“Public laws should not attempt to overrule a doctor’s professional judgment on crucial medical decisions regarding a patient’s health.”
Can I count you among those opposed to President Obama’s health initiative? After all it includes the creation of a national board that will review medical practices and procedures and, let’s not kid ourselves, dictate what health care can be administered and what cannot. You’re overweight? No hip replacement for you. You’re over 80? Well we’ll have to let you go blind in at least one eye before we pay for the surgery to correct your vision. You’re a smoker? Well you’ll have to quit before we can even consider treating you.
It pains me when I hear people say, “As a practicing Catholic,” and then go on to defend their position on abortion. That formulation provided a unique twist when Mario Cuomo first foisted it on the American people, as a neat way for Catholics to look the other way on abortion and still be faithful. With all due respect Congressman, as a practicing Catholic, you need more practice.
Would you stand in front of the NAACP debating the Dred Scott case, with the argument, “Well, I have to support the Supreme Court’s decision on Dred Scott, for while I am personally opposed to slavery, I believe legislation opposing slavery would be an undue intrusion on the rights of slaveholders. After all, they paid good money for these slaves. We just can’t take them away.” Would you? To the slaveholder, it was property, not a person. To the abolitionist, they were human beings who couldn’t be owned by another. Today, those who are pro-abortion are the same as the pro-slavery people of the nineteenth century. Those who are pro-life are the abolitionists of the current era.
Slavery was wrong then and an ugly blemish on our history. People will look back on us and see the same ugly stain of 40,000,000 aborted babies and ask, “Have they learned nothing?”
Sincerely yours,
The Congressman Responds
I really didn’t expect a response to my rebuttal. I didn’t think the Congressman would want to wade into the arena and battle it out. When I saw the letter in the batch of mail, I set it aside. I wasn’t quite ready for the ire of another cafeteria Catholic telling me I had no right to challenge his faith. However, when I opened the letter I was surprised. It was the exact same copy of the original letter that I received! The only thing changed was the date.
“How should we reply Congressman?”
“Let’s see, he sounds conservative, let’s send him letter No. 37″
“Okay, done!”
If the Congressman was employed by me and pulling down $174,000 and he tried to submit the same work product twice, he would get an escort to his car after a brief stop to clean out his desk.
The Truth Revealed
The most telling point I missed the first time around. The Congressman when writing about late term abortions states, “…if it includes an exception that encompasses the life and health of the mother.” Children have mothers. Clumps of cells don’t have mothers. If a woman goes into the hospital to have her appendix removed, do we call her a mother, if she has no children? So if the good Congressman is talking about a mother, what is being aborted is her child. Killing a child is murder.
Let us not forget that President Obama, the great conciliator and healer, fought against a law while in the Illinois Senate, that would require that a child that survives an abortion be given medical care. Instead, State Senator Obama supported leaving the newborn infant to die, since that was the intent of the mother. It’s pretty gruesome and heartless in Obama’s America.
