Startling but Familiar

The letter reproduced in the previous post includes this all too common assertion:

I believe government should not interfere in a woman's right to choose and medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor.

We've been hearing and reading this sentiment for nearly a half-century. However, as familiar as these "beliefs" may be, there is something profoundly inhuman about them, especially the second: "medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor."

Does any woman think of an abortionist as really "her" physician? The abortion doctor is there for the woman for only one reason: to end her pregnancy. The decision to end the nascent life in her womb is not a matter of debate between an expectant woman and the medics with the anaesthetic, the chemicals, and the tools.

There is something chilling about not "interfering"; the congressperson's assertion could be restated as:

I believe that we should leave unfortunately pregnant women to fend for themselves. They got themselves in this situation. They should seek out the panacea of abortion without any concern from anyone else. Send them off alone to a cold, sterile place to make this trivial decision.

Is this what we have come to: preserving the convenience of some by isolating and ignoring the many? What a callous, shocking attitude towards women. Isn't this idea really misogynism in its cold, lifeless heart-of hearts?

A Canned Response

Last month, a Congressman provided this response to a citizen concerned about FOCA -- the so-called Freedom of Conscience Act:

February 19, 2009

Dear Rex,

Thank you for contacting me about your position on H.R. 1964, the Freedom of Choice Act. I appreciate hearing from you on such an important issue because it enables me to better represent the beliefs and values of our district.

I believe government should not interfere in a woman's right to choose and medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor. I also believe we must do all we can to reduce unintended pregnancies through comprehensive sex education programs that include abstinence education. As you know, H.R. 1964 would declare the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health. In addition, the bill would also prohibit a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

Currently, the bill is under review by the House Committee on the Judiciary of which I am not a member. Rest assured I will closely monitor the progress of the bill during the 111th Congress, and will keep your views in mind.

Even though we were unable to find common ground this time, I understand and am respectful of your strong beliefs on this important topic. I look forward to working with you in the future on the many issues where we are in agreement.

I encourage you to continue to contact me about the issues that are important to you. Please visit my website ... where you can also sign up for my electronic newsletter and receive periodic updates on my activities as your Representative in Washington.

Because of a desire to post and discuss this message, the Congressperson was contacted again to ask permission for posting the email together with identifying information. This was the response to that request…

March 5, 2009

Dear Rex,

Thank you for contacting me about your position on H.R. 1964, the Freedom of Choice Act. I appreciate hearing from you on such an important issue because it enables me to better represent the beliefs and values of our district.

….

I encourage you to continue to contact me about the issues that are important to you. Please visit my website … where you can also sign up for my electronic newsletter and receive periodic updates on my activities as your Representative in Washington.

Yes, the two letters are identical. This implies (does it not?) that the congressperson’s staff is not reading communications closely. However, explicit permission to reproduce the email has still not been received. So, the Congressperson will remain unidentified.

Succeeding posts will comment on the email response and the (expanded) website quotation.