Thursday, January 29, 2015

My Reply From and To Representative Schweikert of Arizona

I originally posted an article about the 20 week abortion ban and included a copy of my email to my Congressional Representative Schweikert from Arizona. It was posted at and you can refer back to that post to see what I actually said. The reply I got sounded to me like we were having a different conversation. He tried to side step my whole position and intoned a talking point instead of referring to and answering with a real reply to what I said, below his email you can read my reply to his effort to dodge me.

My reply FROM Representative Schweikert:

10603 North Hayden Road
Suite 108
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
(480) 946-2411
Fax: (480) 946-2446
Congress of the United States // House of Representatives

January 28, 2015
Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your support for pro-life legislation.  I appreciate your advocacy on this issue and am pleased to take this moment to address your concerns.

This is a subject that is very close to my heart. My birth mother chose to give me up for adoption rather than have an abortion; I was given the chance to be here today.  If you have the time, please read the article that I wrote for the Daily Caller, which I have attached.

Since arriving in Washington I have supported and co-sponsored a number of pro-life bills, including Congressman Chris Smith's bill H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, Congressman Trent Franks' bill H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and Congresswoman Diane Black's bill H.R. 217, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act.

I am proud to have supported these measures and can assure you that I will continue to advocate for policies that defends the lives of unborn children and prohibits federal funding for abortion.

I am greatly honored to serve you in Congress and look forward to future correspondence with you.  Please contact me if you have a future questions or concerns that I may assist you with.

David Schweikert
Member of Congress

My reply TO Representative Schweiker (As you can tell, I didn't say his name, who it was to, or address it, I just replied without even a regular signature.) :

I am hoping this was an auto response and not an answer to my message because then you would have completely ignored what I was talking about and what this legislation was about and went right on expressing your agenda instead of addressing my concern. The fact is that some defects, including the likelihood of being stillborn or born in the state we consider medically to be a "vegetable state" or basically braindead, is what this issue is about, not regular births. 
If you were trying to disarm me with your talk about you being born to a mother who might not have been married or was in a rough circumstance, which included my birth parents, and you were put up for adoption, you picked the wrong guy. 
So was I, and I am grateful, but obviously, as you can tell by my reply, I wasn't born braindead or a vegetable. Some of those symptoms can't be diagnosed in a fetus (which according to scripture, isn't alive until it starts breathing) 
Yes, I also was born as an illegitimate birth back when that mattered and was put on the birth certificates, legislated into being by hypocritical conservative religious people. .My birth parents were chastised by the same type of people in their own families and were Catholic, one British and one Italian, and without the pressure of bronze age dogma, might have felt good about keeping me until they got married (or not) later on. I wouldn't have had to grow up with that social stigma. But then, that is about me, who isn't brain dead or a vegetable. 
I am going to send this reply to you who I assume isn't a vegetable either, though if you reply again without addressing the actual topic I mentioned, I might wonder, maybe if at least partially, you don't comprehend reality and logic. This 20 week abortion ban is unfair to mothers because it is none of anyone's business, since the time limit is up the the woman's doctor and herself. It isn't up to bunch of men, especially, to decide for women what their options are supposed to be since we don't life in the Middle East or other patriarchal societies since the suffragette movement. 
Although, I am not a fan of abortion, or death imposed for any reason, as a Buddhist, there are exceptions and logical avenues that can't be avoided, but the main problem with bans and restrictions of this kind are that NO ONE has the right to tell a pregnant female what her future should be besides her and her parents, until she is over the age of 18, and then it's up to her. I find it ironic that the same people who seem so concerned about a fetus are the same ones who want to take food stamps away from poor children. So they care about you until you are born and then you are left on your own, if opportunities don't arise for your life and your parents are struggling. That might be hard for you to conceive but I see it every day. 
I am a senior now, so, I am old enough to remember when abortions were illegal and I realized, like the rest of society did at that time, that women, and young women especially, are going to get abortions, legal or not. I watched the news and saw local girls using clothes hangers to self abort and dying. The bans or restrictions are the first step in trying to go back in that direction and should be stopped, as I said in my first email. The right wing zealots and the bought and paid for corrupted people will stand on the side of the Healthcare Insurance Lobbies that don't want to pay for a woman's needs at all, if they could get away with it, and the religious zealots, although some have been brainwashed into believing it's a "biblical thing" although, as I said before, it isn't in the bible or any other religious text, and the guys at the pulpits are just mouthing what the people who pay the congressmen to keep them from having to pay income tax, tell them to say. 
And from the party that always talks about smaller, less intrusive government being the answer, this intrusion into women's healthcare is ludicrous. I will close with my last thought. 
We already had this argument for centuries before it was decided by a much more spiritually fit and morally correct society of Americans 50 years ago, arguing about it now is just a bothersome anecdote to what will be eventually archaic mythology. Someday, perhaps 50 years from now, society will look back and wonder what the hell we were thinking arguing about it continually. 

No comments:

Post a Comment