Political Discourse as it once was. Quotes from the Lincoln/Douglas debates:

"If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneous conclusion."
- Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

 

"I desire to address myself to your judgment, your understanding, and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm."
- Stephen A. Douglas, 8/21/1858

 

"But I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be 'conscientious' on the subject."
- Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

 

 

 


Scoring


Form letter reply or no reply at all. It is not clear that anyone has even read the correspondence beyond possibly noting the topic. A complete disregard of a constituent's specific questions especially after repeated attempts. A complete lack of engagement in the democratic process.

 

Attempts to address the specific points raised by the constituent but in a demonstrably unreasoned manner, whether sincere or through deliberate rationalization.

 

 

A valid, rational argument that places truth above politics and partisanship. Fully engaged in the democratic process.


 

 

 

 


Contribute?

Do you have some correspondence with your representative that you would like to contribute to EngageTheDebate.com?

Please send it to info@EngageTheDebate.com


 

 

 

 

 


"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

- Thomas Jefferson, 3/31/1809, in a letter to the Citizens of Washington County, Maryland


 

"I have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be 'conscientious' on the subject."  - Abraham Lincoln debating Stephen Douglas, 8/21/1858


Senator Barbara Boxer, CA

After nearly 2 years of nothing but form letters in reply to my queries, I finally made some limited progress. The Senator's position was described as using viability (as determined by the woman and her doctor) as the line where rights should be granted. I then replied with a letter describing several arguments refuting viability as a rational line where rights should be granted and in response the office reverted to form letters. (22 contacts)

Summary of Contacts:

Contact
Summary
Initial contact. Trying to engage the debate.
No reply so another attempt to engage made.
Still no reply so another attempt to engage made.
Phone call to California office seeking answers.
Undemocratically DisengagedAfter four contacts spanning a year and a half, a simple, content-free form letter reply was received.
A reply to the Senator's form letter.
Undemocratically DisengagedAfter six contacts I receive another form letter but this one does not even mention the topic.
A reply to the Senator's 2nd form letter.
Called the DC office to speak to the legislative analyst on this issue.
Received a call from the legislative analyst giving me the fax number.
I faxed my initial letter to the legislative analyst.
Received a call reply to my fax and I responded with some questions..
Received another call from the legislative analyst following up on our previous conversation.
I returned the call and spoke with the legislative analyst at some length.
I faxed a letter to the Senator's office on the irrationality of viability as a line for granting rights.
Called and left a message with the legislative analyst to check on the status of the fax.
The legislative analyst called me back.
I called Julia concerning the approval process since the reply was now 5 weeks overdue.
Undemocratically DisengagedI received a form letter reply instead of the promised "approved" response to my query! Actually engaging with a consitituent is not an "approved" process in the office of Senator Barbara Boxer.
I left Julia Lee a message to see if the e-mailed form letter was the response that I was meant to receive or if another was on its way.
Undemocratically DisengagedI received the same form disengaged form letter via post. It seems the office of Senator Barbara Boxer is serious about not participating in the democratic process.
I called and left Julia Lee a message asking if this dialog was at an end.

 


First contact: To Senator Barbara Boxer from a private citizen.

May 30, 2001


Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Barbara Boxer,

As my representative in the U.S. Senate, I would like to better understand your pro-choice position by asking you just a few specific questions. These questions are straightforward and I would prefer answers to these questions rather than a general form letter response so that I may better understand how you represent me, your constituent.

As a rational person who is pro-life, I can find no Constitutional basis for one person's 'right' to legally kill an innocent person. The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that all persons, regardless of citizenship, are to be protected equally by the laws. This argument presumes:

1) the pregnant woman is two individuals and not one
2) the second individual is also a person entitled to rights
3) all persons are included by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution

If you accept these three statements then there is no other rational position but to be pro-life. As a pro-choice person you must disagree with at least one of these three statements. In summary, I would like to know which and why.

The first statement is based on the fact that our lives as individuals begin at conception/fertilization. There is overwhelming evidence to support this fact. According to U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee testimony given by numerous internationally known biologists and geneticists, the answer is clear:

"Conception (fertilization) marks the beginning of the life of a human being ... There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientific writings."
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p.7

Further testimony was given by Jerome Lejuene, the Father of Modern Genetics, who told lawmakers, "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

Opposing testimony to these points was invited but none was received because to do so is profoundly contrary to scientific knowledge.

One does not need a degree in biology to accept this position as fact for if a new individual did not exist after conception/fertilization then a pregnancy must at some point conclude by the mother splitting into two individuals, an act of asexual reproduction. Since we each have two parents who created us at conception/fertilization, if we are not independent beings from that point on then human beings must reproduce asexually which is absurd.

My first question for you is do you believe that conception/fertilization marks the beginning of a human being's existence? If no, please explain when this occurs and why you believe this is so.

The second statement is that unborn human beings are in fact persons entitled to rights. Being a person is not a subjective matter, as some seemingly believe; it is a matter of objective fact. Africans are persons and have always been persons even though they were not treated as such during the days of slavery. Dred Scott was factually incorrect by not recognizing the objective fact of the personhood of Africans. Those today who claim that while the unborn are human beings they are not persons are making a similar arbitrary, subjective assertion. Upon serious examination, I have never found a rational argument to support this pro-choice conclusion. Let me explain why.

You and I are persons because we are each inherently capable of thought, feeling, emotion, reason, and all of those other attributes commonly associated with persons. The unborn are also persons because they are beings that have this same inherent capacity. While they do not have the immediate capacity to demonstrate these abilities, neither do you or I while unconscious. You and I retain our personhood while unconscious because we are beings with these inherent capacities. It's that simple. Unborn human beings are persons for the same reason that you and I are; we all have inherent capacities that distinguish us from all non-persons. We all have the being of persons so we all are persons.

While one could perhaps argue that only those individuals with blue eyes are persons, one would be hard pressed to explain why this position would not be arbitrary since it has nothing to do with being a person. The only non-arbitrary place for assigning personhood is the beginning of that individual's existence which is conception/fertilization. Any other place ignores the inherent capacities of that being which is what defines the being for what he/she truly is, a person.

My second question is do you believe that unborn human beings, while living members of the species homo sapiens, are also persons? If no, when do they become persons and why at that time?

The third part of my position comes directly from the U.S. Constitution. The 14th amendment clearly states that all persons are to have equal protection of the laws. Since you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution I doubt that you have an issue with the 14th amendment. Do you have a different reading of this amendment?

I have given a lot of thought to this issue and have found no rational pro-choice arguments that address this fundamental issue of the personhood of the unborn. Even Roe v. Wade specifically avoids it which is absolutely inexcusable; You can't argue that there are no victims simply by dodging the point.

In today's political climate, being pro-choice is easy. Given the rationality of pro-life arguments that I have heard, I think that someday arguments for the choice of abortion and the choice to own slaves will be held in the same regard. The arbitrary denial of the most fundamental protections, called by our founders the "unalienable right to life and liberty," in order to achieve one's own ends against an innocent person is a crime against humanity. There is no Constitutional right to kill an innocent human being for one's own benefit. (Again, Roe v. Wade specifically avoided this point and therefore can not be used as a defense.)

I am very open to a rational pro-choice argument but I'm having some difficulty finding one. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply so that I may better understand just how you are representing me in the Senate.

Sincerely,

A Private Citizen



Second contact: Senator Barbara Boxer did not reply so another message sent.

October 6, 2001


Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Barbara Boxer,

On May 30th I sent you a letter asking for a clarification of your position on abortion and I have not yet received a reply. I would like to give you another opportunity and again I ask that the reply not be as a form letter as that certainly will not be able to respond to the particular questions that I have. My original letter is enclosed.

Sincerely.
A Private Citizen


Third contact: A third contact with Senator Barbara Boxer concerning her lack of engagement on this topic.

February 2, 2002


Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Barbara Boxer,

Re: Your position on slavery

I simply can not understand your continued support for slavery. Clearly, the evidence that slaves are fellow human beings is scientifically incontrovertible and they are deserving of the dignity and respect due all persons as guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The founders of the Feminist movement, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were completely opposed to slavery precisely because they believed that by definition there could be no exceptions to 'equality'. By simply ignoring the humanity of the slave you do not justify your position; you are merely masking a terrific injustice.

I would like to point out that as shocking as the above paragraph sounds today it is exactly like your position on abortion and every statement is just as true. Please read it again with this in mind:

I simply can not understand your continued support for abortion. Clearly, the evidence that the unborn are fellow human beings is scientifically incontrovertible and they are deserving of the dignity and respect due all persons as guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The founders of the Feminist movement, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were completely opposed to abortion precisely because they believed that by definition there could be no exceptions to 'equality'. By simply ignoring the humanity of the unborn you do not justify your position; you are merely masking a terrific injustice.

I have twice now (in letters dated 5/30/01 and 10/6/01) asked you three simple questions concerning your position on the humanity and protections due the unborn and you have not replied. I will give you one more opportunity to reply in writing (original letter is enclosed) before I make an appointment with your office so that you can explain in person your support of slavery and its equivalent. As the person who purports to represent me in Congress, I do not believe I am asking too much.

Sincerely.

A Private Citizen

Fourth contact: Phone call to Senator Barbara Boxer's office seeking answers.

November 6, 2002

Phone call to Senator Barbara Boxer's California office seeking answers to these questions.


Spoke with Meagan and asked for a reply to the specific questions that I had asked in my letter of first letter. She said she would resubmit my letter to the DC office and ask for a reply to my specific questions.

Fifth contact: Received a standard form letter reply to my 4 queries.

Undemocratically Disengaged Senator Barbara Boxer's form letter reply is probably sent to anyone who disagrees with her on this issue. It, of course, does not even attempt to address the specific issues raised in the initial correspondence demonstrating a complete lack of engagement in the democratic process.



 

November 23 2002

Thank you for contacting me with your views on the issue of reproductive choice. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, reproductive choice--including family planning and abortion--is an issue about which Americans hold a wide range of opinions.

I believe decisions relating to reproductive choice are personal ones, and ultimately rest with the woman, her family, and her God.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Sixth contact: E-mail reply to Senator Barbara Boxer's form letter, still seeking basic information.

November 24, 2002

Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Barbara Boxer,

Do you believe that it is acceptable in our representative democracy for a Senator to take a very forceful stand on an issue and not explain why they have taken this position even when asked? Is it acceptable for a representative to be totally unresponsive to specific, fundamental questions of one's very own constituents concerning issues of great national disagreement? Your recent reply to my previous queries leads me to believe that you think these are acceptable.

On May 30, 2001, now a year and a half ago, I asked you several questions concerning your position on abortion, questions that anyone who has taken a strong stand on the issue should be able to easily answer, and I received no reply. Then on three subsequent occasions (10/6/2001, 2/2/2002, and 11/6/2002) I again attempted to get you to engage in the democratic process by asking these same fundamental questions. I finally received your reply of November 18, 2002, a simple form letter that only restated what your position was but which made no attempt to answer my questions of why you hold this position.

This is not acceptable. As a representative, you have an obligation to support such a strongly held position on one of today's most contentious social issues with reasoned argument. Why exactly do you think it is acceptable to kill an innocent person for another's benefit? You must have some form of explanation for such a position; to refuse to offer an explanation is to disengage from the democratic process, an unacceptable alternative for an elected representative.

Your position, as restated in your form letter, is that abortion is just a matter of "choice." This is substantially the same position taken by one of your senatorial predecessors, Stephen Douglas, in his senate campaign of 1858 against Abraham Lincoln concerning his position on allowing new slave states into the union. Douglas thought this also was only a matter of "choice" as he said, "I will vote for the admission of just such a State as by the form of their Constitution the people show they want; if they want slavery, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery it shall be prohibited." (Senator Stephen A. Douglas, August 27, 1858)

The problem with your position on abortion is the same problem with Douglas' position; it ignores the humanity and unalienable rights of those at the center of the issue.

If you believe otherwise then please let me know why. I do not necessarily ask that you change your position on this issue; I only ask that you present a rational position in its favor.

The Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858 consisted of more than 20 hours of debate on issues surrounding slavery thereby creating an informed citizenry. I have again included my initial correspondence containing only three fundamental questions requiring your attention.

Sincerely,
A Private Citizen


Seventh contact: Received a form letter in reply that did not even mention the topic.

Undemocratically Disengaged Senator Barbara Boxer's form letter reply does not even mention the topic. It, of course, does not even attempt to address the specific issues raised in the initial correspondence demonstrating a complete lack of engagement in the democratic process.



Dear Private Citizen:

Thank you for writing to me regarding issues important to you. I appreciate the
opportunity to review your comments.

As you may know, the 107th Congress has adjourned. When I join together with my colleagues to consider legislation for the 108th Congress, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. Letters such as yours allow me to better represent the interests of Californians in my capacity as Senator.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Eighth contact: Web form reply to Senator Barbara Boxer's form letter, still seeking clarification of her basic position.

December 23, 2002

Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Barbara Boxer,

Re: Does anyone read these messages?

Dear Barbara Boxer,

In all of my previous correspondence I have asked for further clarification of your position with specific questions but in your replies you do not offer any additional information on your position. Given your most recent reply, it is not clear that anyone at all even reads these letters for the topic in question was not even mentioned. I am not simply presenting an opinion for your consideration; I am seeking additional information.

I would like to give you another opportunity to engage in the democratic process by clarifying your position given my original questions of over a year and a half ago. My original letter is enclosed.

Sincerely,
A Private Citizen


Ninth contact: Call to Senator Boxer's DC office.

March 10, 2003

I called Senator Boxer's DC office and discovered that the legislative analyst in charge of this issue is Julia Lee. I left a message for Julia.


Tenth contact: Received a call from Senator Boxer's DC office.

March 11, 2003

I received a return call from Julia and she provided me with a fax number where I could send my initial correspondence of nearly two years ago.


Eleventh contact: I faxed the first letter to Senator Boxer's DC office.

March 13, 2003

I faxed my initial correspondence of nearly two years ago to Julia, the legislative analyst.


Twelfth contact: I receive a phone call in reply to my fax.

While this reply was appreciated as it was the first attempt by any representative to reply in an official capacity, it nonetheless misses the mark as there was absolutely no support for the position provided. Hopefully more information will be forthcoming on this viability position. This reply does earn a higher ranking for it was a conversation with someone who was speaking for the Senator.



March 21, 2003

Julia Lee called me in reply to my fax. She explained that Senator Boxer's position draws the line at viability. I then asked the following questions:

  • At what specific age this would be since this is a point that changes with technology?

  • I asked her if this means that she believes that this is not a human being before this point or is not a "person."

  • I asked at what percentage of viability are rights given since viability is simply a degree to which a child may survive and not an on/off switch.

  • I asked what viability means considering a child that is viable given the technology in the Bay area, would not be viable in Botswana.

  • Also, why is she then for partial birth abortion which can be done through all 9 months of pregancy?

She was going to look into these questions and get back to me.


Thirteenth contact: I received a followup call to our previous conversation (as a voice mail).

This reply was also very much appreciated but lacked any sort of position justification which is the entire purpose of these contacts.



March 26, 2003

Received a return call (as a voice mail) from Julia. She agreed that since viability is dependent on technology, that this is not a proper line. She said that the Senator's position was simply that this is a decision between a woman and her doctor.

This statement leaves all of my original questions unanswered for it only describes the what and not the why; it is simply a statement and not the requested explanation.


Fourteenth contact: I returned Julia's call and spoke with her.

March 27, 2003

I called Julia back and found that the Senator's position is that the decision of the woman and her doctor determines when viability is which is when protection begins which (she was guessing) meant that personhood begins. We had a lengthy discussion but realizing that she was representing her own position and not that of the Senator's she agreed to try and find more information.

I made it clear that I accept the Senator's position and don't hope to change it but that I simply want more details on it. It is not enough to say what one's position is, it must have some sort of argument behind it. I mentioned that in the Senatorial campaign of 1858, Lincoln and Douglas spent more than 20 hours across seven debates discussing slavery, the most contentious social issue in our nation's history. So why can't I expect a rather simple explanation of the Senator's position?


Fifteenth contact: I faxed a letter to Senator Boxer's office concerning the irrationality of using viability as a line where rights should be granted.

March 29, 2003


Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Barbara Boxer,

On March 27, 2003, I spoke with Julia Lee who graciously took time out of her day to speak with me concerning my request for a clarification of your position on abortion. While my original written questions were not specifically addressed, she did provide much more information than I had previously.

She said that your position on abortion is that viability is the line at which rights should be granted and that this point can only be determined by the pregnant woman and her doctor. Julia could not say if this is the point at which you, Senator, believe that one becomes a "person" or if one is already a person at this point but is just not covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, but it seemed clear that this was the point at which you grant rights to individuals. She said that she would try and find out your position more precisely and I sincerely welcome that effort. I also have some additional points to make on this matter that I hope you consider in your reply.

Viability is not an appropriate place to draw a line granting a fetus rights for several reasons:

1) Viability is a measure of the technology present which would allow a fetus to continue living if outside the mother. Therefore, viability occurs at different times depending on one's location. The very same infant that is viable while in one of the world's best neonatal hospitals is certainly not viable in rural, under-developed parts of the world that lack the necessary facilities.

Such a line dividing persons from non-persons creates an untenable situation. Say that an unborn infant and her mother travel from a hospital where the infant is viable to an area where the child would not survive if delivered. Does this infant that suddenly had rights because she was viable in the hospital now lose them because she and her mother are now in a different location? This is absurd.

This is absurd because what it means to be a person worthy of rights simply can not be dependent upon things external to the individual in question. The definition of what it is to be a person must be a description of the very being in question, not of things external to that being. Viability is a completely external measurement and therefore can not be used, rationally, to define personhood and therefore the granting of rights.

2) Since viability is a measure of technology and technology changes, viability also changes. Yet fetuses today are just like fetuses hundreds of years ago when viability was much later. The fetus has not changed, only the technology.

Again, viability is not a relevant measure of the fetus but rather of the outside world. Your being as a person as well as mine is not determined by the level of technology surrounding us and the same is true of the fetus.

3) Viability is not even a line. Viability is a percentage chance of survival such as a child being 40% viable under a given set of circumstances. No one can guarantee the safety of a child born at any stage of pregnancy let alone at an early stage. And there is no such thing as being a partial person; you are either fully a person or you are not a person at all. You are never 20% of a person entitled to 20% rights. Therefore viability, as a sliding scale, measures something entirely different than what it is to be a person entitled to rights.

For this entirely distinct reason, viability can not be used to determine personhood and therefore the rights entitled to persons.

4) A fetus is perfectly viable in its natural environment just as you and I are in our environment. To argue that a fetus has no rights because it is not capable of surviving in an environment quite unlike its own is just like arguing that we don't have rights because we can't survive in an environment unlike our own. There are numerous beings that live quite well in our environment (e.g. cats, horses) that are not persons; therefore our ability to survive in a particular environment can not be the determining factor that ascribes personal rights.

5) Being a person is not a subjective matter; it is a matter of objective fact. Africans, for instance, are persons and have always been persons even though they were not treated as such during the days of slavery. Dred Scott was factually incorrect by not recognizing the objective fact of the full personhood of Africans.

Therefore, to claim that this is a decision that can only be decided by a woman in consultation with her doctor is to claim that personhood is inherently a subjective decision! This position of subjectively giving rights to certain individuals has been disastrous in its terrible application throughout history (e.g. slavery, the holocaust, women's suffrage, etc.). Personhood is not subjective.

6) Viability also applies to most all other creatures on this planet. A dog before birth can be thought of as being pre-viable and later as viable but a viable dog is not a person. Therefore viability can not be the determining factor of what it is to be a person; this clearly demonstrates that there must be something else involved that separates non-persons from persons other than viability.

What it is to be a person entitled to rights is actually a fairly simple, rational thing to describe.

You and I are persons because we are each inherently capable of thought, feeling, emotion, reason, and all of those other attributes commonly associated with persons. The unborn are also persons because they are beings that have this same inherent capacity. While they do not have the immediate capacity to demonstrate these abilities, neither do you or I while unconscious. You and I retain our personhood while unconscious because we are beings with these inherent capacities. It's that simple. Unborn human beings are persons for the same reason that you and I are; we all have inherent capacities that distinguish us from all non-persons. We all have the being of persons which means that we all are persons.


I sincerely ask that you consider these points in addition to the first letter that I sent to you asking for clarification of your position. I am a sincere believer in the power of the democratic process but this process demands more than a statement of one's position; it demands rational discourse in support of one's position.

My first letter asked only three questions that are all central to this discussion and for which I do not know where you stand.

1) If we are not human beings from conception/fertilization onward then when do we become human and why?
2) If we are not persons from that same point then when do we become persons and why?
3) Does the equal protection clause apply equally to all persons?

I am not simply presenting an opinion for your consideration; I am seeking additional information on your position and as my representative I think that I am entitled to a better understanding of your position.

I would like to give you another opportunity to engage in the democratic process by clarifying your position given my original questions of nearly two years ago. My original letter containing a fuller explanation of my three questions is enclosed.

Please feel free to send your reply to either my address above or to xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx .

Sincerely,
A Private Citizen



Sixteenth contact: I called Julia to check on the status of my last fax.

April 11, 2003

Called and left a message with Julia Lee to see if she received the viability fax sent two weeks previously and if/when I might expect a reply. I asked her to call or e-mail a reply.



Seventeenth contact: Julia returned my call.

April 18, 2003

Julia returned my call and said that I would receive a reply to my viability fax once it was approved and that this might take 2-3 weeks.



Eighteenth contact: I called Julia concerning the approval process since the reply was now 5 weeks overdue.

June 9, 2003

I called Julia and left her a message concerning the approval process for the reply to my questions since it had been nearly 8 weeks since her call.



Nineteenth contact: I received a form letter reply instead of the promised "approved" response to my query! Actually engaging with a consitituent is not an "approved" process in the office of Senator Barbara Boxer.

Apparently an approval process that involves actually engaging with a constituent is not to be allowed requiring another form letter to feign interest in my "concerns."

 


 

June 16, 2003

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about abortion. I appreciate the opportunity to review your comments.

As a matter of public policy, it is important that we work to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thus the need for abortions. Therefore, it is important that we educate people so that unplanned pregnancies are prevented.


As is the current law, I believe government should leave the decision to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy to the woman, her doctor, and her God.

Again, thank you for writing to me to express your concerns about abortion. Please feel free to contact me again in the future about this or any other issue of importance to you.

Sincerely, Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

 



Twentieth contact: I left Julia Lee a message to see if the e-mailed form letter was the response that I was meant to receive or if another was on its way.

June 16, 2003

I left Julia Lee a message to see if the e-mailed form letter was the response that I was meant to receive or if another was on its way.



Twenty First contact: I received the same form disengaged form letter via post. It seems the office of Senator Barbara Boxer is serious about not participating in the democratic process.

Having received the same form letter twice in one day via post and e-mail, I get the impression that the office of Senator Barbara Boxer will never engage with those who question their reasoning. We have come a long way from the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

 


 

June 11, 2003

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about abortion. I appreciate the
opportunity to review your comments.

As a matter of public policy, it is important that we work to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thus the need for abortions. Therefore, it is important that we educate people so that unplanned pregnancies are prevented.


As is the current law, I believe government should leave the decision to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy to the woman, her doctor, and her God.

Again, thank you for writing to me to express your concerns about abortion. Please feel free to contact me again in the future about this or any other issue of importance to you.

Sincerely, Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

 


Twenty Second contact: I called and left Julia Lee a message asking if this dialog was at an end.

June 17, 2003

I called and left Julia Lee a message asking if this dialog was at an end.



 

The office of Senator Barabara Boxer has not returned any of my last three calls.

 


Please send your comments and questions to info@EngageTheDebate.com