|
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 Don Perata, CA (District 09)
In what many might consider
an outright act of political intimidation, the office of Senate
Majority Leader Don Perata has refused not only to engage
this debate, his office has chosen to waste the time, energy
and the financial resources of the California Highway Patrol
in an apparent attempt to silence rational questioning of
his positions by this constituent. His office did not attempt
even a single official, non-form letter reply after repeated
attempts over nearly two years. (38 contacts)
|
Summary of Contacts:
First contact: To Senator
Don Perata encouraging him to engage the debate. This letter
May 26, 2001
Sen. Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Sen. Perata
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: To Senator
Don Perata encouraging him to engage the debate. Sent after receiving
no response to the first letter.
October 6, 2001
Sen. Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Sen. Perata
On May 26th 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. Thank you.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
|
Third contact: Senator
Perata's form letter reply.
|
Don Perata's reply, while more
detailed than the standard form letter, still fails
to address the fundamental questions presented in the
initial correpondence. |
October 11, 2001
I am writing in response to your letter
inquiring about the beliefs underlying my support for pro-choice
legislation.
I recognize that you have strongly held
views about this matter and respect the thoughtful and thorough
explanation of your position contained in your letter. Given
the fervency of belief that characterizes both sides of
this difficult debate, I have no doubt that there is little
that I can say that will seem convincing - or even reasonable
- to you.
My support for pro-choice legislation
is premised upon the belief, which underlies much U.S. law
relating to abortion, that fetuses in early stages of development
are not independent citizens possessing legal rights that
can be separated entirely from those of the mother whose
womb sustains them. I believe that one can acknowledge the
fact that fetuses are living beings and that the state has
a growing interest in extending protections to them as they
develop while still factoring in the rights of mothers who
are fundamentally and intimately involved in the fetus'
development.
I appreciate your taking the time to let
me know of your views on this matter and welcomed the opportunity
to respond to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Don Perata
|
Fourth contact: Again
trying to engage the debate (third attempt).
October
31, 2001
Sen. Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Sen. Perata
Thank you for your October 11th reply
to my recent letter concerning your support of abortion
legislation.
I must say that while I agree that "fervency
of belief" is often an apt characterization of both
sides of this debate, it is not at all a persuading factor
for me; in fact I find much of both sides of this debate
terribly lacking. I do, however, think that rational thought
is quite important in debate and it is for this reason that
I am writing to you again. I am a firm believer in the equality
of all persons and if someone were to argue for the legality
of slavery I would respectfully disagree. It is in that
same spirit that I disagree with your position on abortion
as abortion is also a horrifically discriminatory practice.
You wrote that your support for abortion
legislation "is premised on the belief, which underlies
much U.S. law relating to abortion, that fetuses in early
stages of development are not independent citizens possessing
legal rights.." According to the Constitution no one
is a citizen until birth and therefore no human being at
any stage before birth is an 'independent citizen'. But
the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment states
that all persons are to be equally protected by our laws
regardless of citizenship: all persons, regardless of citizenship.
It is on this point that I would like a clarification of
your position.
If all persons are equally protected by
the laws by Constitutional mandate, then how can one person
have the right to kill another person strictly for their
own benefit? How is that equal protection? You wrote that
you "acknowledge the fact that fetuses are living beings",
presumably belonging to the species homo sapiens, and yet
you allude to a supposed right to kill that innocent human
being. Why is this an exception to the equal protection
clause?
While I truly do appreciate your candid
and quick replies to my letters, I must admit some disappointment
in the fact that you have not answered any of my original
questions in this regard. As your constituent I would find
those answers most enlightening regarding your position
and so I have enclosed a copy of my earlier letter.
I suspect that the reason you choose to
not answer these questions, with all due respect, is that
you can not in good reason. I have for many years made a
sincere attempt to find a rational, Constitutional pro-choice
position but I can not find one; being pro-choice, I have
found, is very similar to arguing that race is a suitable
criterion for enslavement. I ask you to show me that I am
incorrect by answering my original questions. Again, thank
you for your time in this matter.
Your constituent,
A Private Citizen
|
Fifth contact: Again trying
to engage the debate (fourth attempt).
February 2, 2002
Sen. Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Sen. Perata
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 three times now (in letters dated
5/26/01, 10/6/01
and 10/31/01) asked you three simple
questions concerning your position on the humanity and protections
due the unborn and you have not replied to my specific questions.
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, I do not believe I am asking too
much.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
|
Sixth contact: First call
to arrange a meeting with the Senator to discuss this issue.
June 10, 2002
I called the Senator's office to arrange
a meeting to discuss this issue. I was told that his scheduler
would speak to the Senator to see what could be arranged.
|
Seventh contact: Called
the office again to arrange a meeting.
June 17, 2002
I called Senator Perata's office again
to arrange a meeting. Had to leave a message.
|
Eighth contact: I called
the Senator's office and was given reasons why the Senator could
not meet with me.
June, 2002
I called the Senator's office again
and was told by the scheduler that the Senator could not
meet with me because 1) the California budget crisis was
taking up all of his time and 2) the Senator had answered
all of my questions in his form letter. (Not true.)
Since the first reason was plausible
I decided to bide my time until the budget crisis had passed
to re-engage.
|
Ninth contact: Phone contact
to set up a meeting.
October 10, 2002
The budget crisis has ended so I called
the Senator's office to schedule a meeting and was told
that the scheduler was on vacation.
|
Tenth contact: Phone contact
to set up a meeting.
October 16, 2002
I called back and the scheduler told
me that the Senator was sick and that she would talk to
him and call back the following Monday.
|
Eleventh contact: Phone
contact to set up a meeting.
October 22, 2002
Have not heard back so I called and
left a message.
|
Twelfth contact: Phone
contact to set up a meeting.
October 24, 2002
Have not heard back so I called and
left a message.
|
Thirteenth contact:
Phone contact to set up a meeting.
October 25, 2002
Have not heard back so I called and
left a message.
|
Fourteenth contact:
Phone contact to set up a meeting.
October 28, 2002
Have not heard back so I called and
left a message.
|
Fifteenth contact: Phone
contact to set up a meeting.
October 29, 2002
Have not heard back so I called and
left a message.
|
Sixteenth contact: Phone
contact to set up a meeting.
October 30, 2002
Have not heard back so I called and
left a message.
|
Seventeenth contact:
Phone contact to set up a meeting.
October 31, 2002
Have not heard back so I called and
left a message.
|
Eighteenth contact:
Received a call from one of Senator Perata's staffers.
October 31, 2002
I received a call from Erin, one of
Senator Perata's staffers, and had a very good conversation
covering the relevant issues from scratch because she had
not seen any of my correspondence. I was assured that the
Senator would be asked my questions and that a response
would be forthcoming.
Unfortunately, my cell phone battery
expired during this conversation and I did not have the
opportunity to enquire as to when I might expect a reply.
[This reply can not receive a score
because this staffer said that she really could not speak
for the Senator to this degree.]
|
Nineteenth contact:
Phone contact to check on return letter.
November 19, 2002
I called to enquire as to when I might
expect the response letter. I had to leave a message.
|
Twentieth contact:
Phone contact to check on return letter.
November 25, 2002
I called to enquire as to when I might
expect the response letter. I had to leave a message.
|
Twenty first contact:
Phone contact to check on return letter.
November 26, 2002
I called to enquire as to when I might
expect the response letter. I had to leave a message.
|
Twenty second contact:
Phone contact to check on return letter.
December 2, 2002
I called to enquire as to when I might
expect the response letter and I was told that Erin would call me right back...
|
Twenty third contact:
Phone contact to check on return letter.
December 4, 2002
I called and left another message for Erin requesting a return call.
|
Twenty fourth contact:
Phone contact to check on return letter.
December 10, 2002
I called and left another message for
Erin. I asked that a message be left with the receptionist
concerning an estimated date for the reply that I was promised.
|
Twenty fifth contact:
Phone contact to check on return letter.
December 11, 2002
The receptionist was told that I would receive a letter but no eta could be given.
I left another message that Erin please call me back.
|
Twenty sixth contact: Phone contact to check on return letter.
December 17, 2002
Erin Niemela herself, Senator Perata's
chief of staff, answered the phone and so I had a chance
to ask her simply for a date as to when I might expect a
reply. She accused me of being a stalker. I decided to reply
to this in writing. Here is that
reply.
|
Twenty seventh contact:
My written response to an amazing phone discussion with the Senator's Chief of Staff.
December 17, 2002
Sen. Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Senator Perata,
On 10/31/02
I had the pleasure of having a detailed and intelligent
conversation with your Chief of Staff, Erin Niemela, concerning
my recent queries to your office. In this conversation Erin
promised to bring up my concerns to you and to draft a reply.
Unfortunately, this conversation was cut short when my cell
phone battery expired so I was unable to get an estimated
date concerning when I might expect a written reply.
In order to obtain an estimated date I
have called your office and left messages asking to speak
with Erin and I have left my phone number on each occasion
(7 times in the last month and a half) but none of my calls
were returned.
So I called one more time this morning,
12/17/02, and Erin fortuitously answered the main phone
and so I asked her simply for an estimated reply date. She
said that she could not give me an estimated date because
of the renewed budget crisis and, furthermore, that she
considered my calls to your office "stalking"
and that she may call the CHP if I dared call the office
again!
I am truly offended. I have not received
a single reply to my phone messages and then I am accused
of being a "stalker" by my representative's Chief
of Staff who is going to call the police over my enquiries
concerning an estimated date for a promised reply? Do I
live in a police state? Am I not allowed to ask my representative
questions and expect the reply that was promised? This behavior
is unbelievable to me.
Now Erin did not at all sound like the
same person with whom I had spoken with on 10/31/02 so I
must believe that she was simply having a bad day, a very
bad day. But this is not an excuse for a public servant
to treat a constituent in this manner.
To her benefit, I would also like to add
that although I am shocked by today's treatment, I was altogether
impressed with my telephone conversation with Erin on 10/31/02.
She dedicated considerable time in engaging my questions
as our phone conversation was lengthy enough to completely
drain my cell phone battery. Of course, as specific and
detailed as my questions are, she was able to give me her
opinion but could not speak for you, Senator, without consultation
which is what she said she would then do.
I do hope that bringing this to your attention
will not result in a refusal of the promised reply to my
questions. Time will tell if I am right in expecting this
written reply.
I understand that you are quite busy with
the budget now and I wish you well. And even though I have
been "cautioned" against calling your office again
I will do so over time until I have received the reply that
was promised for this situation is a suitable crack for
my questions to fall into and I don't wish to see that happen.
This entire situation is also regrettably
circular for if I only had an estimated reply date then
I would have no reason at all to call your office.
I have enclosed my original
letter of nearly 19 months ago containing the three questions
to which I've been promised a reply.
Thank you,
A Private Citizen
|
Twenty eighth contact:
A reminder letter wondering when I might receive an answer and seeking
an apology for the stalker comments.
February 6, 2003
Sen. Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Senator Perata,
This letter is simply a reminder that
another two months have nearly gone by and the promised
reply to my queries has not yet arrived. The conversation
that I had with your Chief of Staff on 10/31/02
on this issue was detailed enough that I thought she would
simply write everything down and get your approval. Hopefully
her notes are detailed enough that this can still happen.
I am trying to be an engaged citizen but this delay of over
one year and eight months as regards my initial query for
clarification of your position seems a bit too long to wait.
When might I expect a reply?
As regards her off the cuff comment that
my calls to the office seeking only an estimated reply date
(since none of my calls were returned) might result in the
California Highway Patrol showing up at my door as a suspected
stalker, I would recommend that a trivial apology would
be enough to put that matter behind us. I am surprised that
I have received no replies to this particular matter already.
I have enclosed both my original
questions and the previous "stalker"
reply as well.
Thank you for your time, good luck with
the renewed budget crisis and I hope to receive the reply
that was promised very soon.
Sincerely,
Thank you,
A Private Citizen
|
Twenty Ninth contact:
I left a message with the scheduler in order to meet with the Senator
concerning both my original concerns and the stalker comments.
July 7, 2003
I left a message
for the scheduler, Nancy, to schedule an appointment with
the Senator concerning both my questions and Erin's comments.
Tried to speak with Erin as well but she was not in.
I again left contact information.
|
Thirtieth contact:
Again left a message with the scheduler, Nancy.
July 24, 2003
Again left a message
with the scheduler, Nancy, including contact information.
|
Thirty First contact:
Left another message for Nancy because none of my calls are returned.
July 25, 2003
I left another message
for Nancy to please return my call and I again left contact
information.
|
Thirty Second contact: After not having the reply promised by the
Senator Don Perata's Chief of Staff, Erin Niemela, after five months,
I reply to her stated position of using birth as a line even though
it may never have been seen by the Senator himself. I do this so
that these points can be taken into consideration in any reply that
I might receive.
March 30, 2003
Sen. Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Senator Perata,
On 10/31/02 I had a
conversation with your Chief of Staff, Erin Niemela,
concerning my wish to get a clarification of your position
on abortion which I first requested over a year and a half
ago. We spoke at some length and we quickly reached a point
where she felt that she could not adequately speak for your
position without consultation. Our conversation ended with
a promise from Erin that she would communicate my specific
questions to you and write a reply. It is now five months
later and I have received no reply so I am going to respond
to the points that Erin made in that conversation even though
she has apparently not yet passed them by you for your approval.
I hope that you take these comments into consideration in
the reply that Erin promised to write.
To be clear, I do not seek to change your position on this
issue; I ask only for a clarification of your position so
that I may better understand how you represent me. In our
representative democracy, it is simply not enough for a
representative to take a position without being willing
to support it with reasoned argument. It is reasoned argument
that I seek for why you believe that rights can only be
given to individuals at birth.
Stating that personhood begins at birth can not possibly
be a valid definition of what it means to be a person because
this definition includes no references to the characteristics
inherent in being a person and it follows no rules or principles.
In other words it is an arbitrary definition. Let me explain
in more detail.
During my phone conversation with Erin, I tried to uncover
a foundational principle for the offered definition. I asked
if it was the level of development that was achieved that
was the necessary determinant for the granting of rights/personhood.
I suggested that this would imply that a child at birth
born two months prematurely would be less developed than
a full term human in utero but would have rights that the
full term human would not have. If level of development
is the guiding principle then how can the less developed
child be the one with rights? She agreed that development
was not the relevant factor but instead that the dependence
on the mother was the defining characteristic.
I then asked if it was the general principle of dependency
that was most relevant. For if this were the case it would
be problematic because dependency is a graduated scale and
not either/or. For instance, you and I are more dependent
on others than a survivalist who is capable of living weeks
and months at a time in the wilderness. But you and I are
more independent than a parent with Alzheimer's disease
who may in turn be more independent than a newborn who is
more independent than my mother was when she was temporarily
on a heart-lung machine. To the contrary, personhood is
not a sliding scale; one either is or is not a person. Erin
agreed that levels of dependency vary a great deal and that
the suggested definition did not have to do with the general
principle of being dependent but only with this specific
case of human to human dependency.
We did not speak to the following point specifically but
I'm sure that Erin did not intend that the separation of
offspring from mother of any species was meant to grant
rights of personhood (e.g. that a baby elephant once born
and separated from its mother would be a person entitled
to rights). I assumed, safely I think, that she was limiting
herself to our species which only further illustrates the
fact that the argument was not attempting to refer to some
guiding principle about the general bestowing of rights
at human birth.
So the argument was that the unborn are not persons (and
therefore not entitled to rights) because of a distinction
that makes absolutely no reference to the actual intrinsic
nature of what it means to be a person and which makes no
reference to any guiding principle as its foundation. The
problem is that this is the very definition of arbitrary:
Arbitrary
- based on or determined by individual preference or convenience
rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
- depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed
rules
The definition was offered for the point at which a new
person comes into existence (and is therefore entitled to
rights) is arbitrary because:
1) It makes no reference to the inherent nature of what
it means to be a person (which is the central purpose of
a definition!). One can not attempt to define personhood
without mentioning the characteristics that make us persons.
2) It references no general
rule or guiding principle (e.g. dependency or level of development).
3) It exists solely for
the purpose/convenience of attempting to maintain a pre-conceived
conclusion.
An arbitrary definition of
what it means to be a person is absolutely unacceptable
when it comes to applying the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment! Far from attempting to define what it
is to be a person, what was offered is a perfect example
of an arbitrary definition.
It is an objective fact that unborn human beings have the
exact same inherent capacities of personhood that born human
beings have. For example, as the same type of being simply
at an earlier stage of development, the unborn have the
very same inherent capacities to reason, love, be conscious,
and recognize truth and beauty as you and I do, and therefore
unborn human beings are persons just the same as you and
I are. They can't demonstrate this at the moment but neither
can you or I while unconscious; we retain our personhood
in full while unconscious because our inherent capacities
for functioning as persons are completely retained; in other
words it is only as a person that I could ever hope to function
as a person! These inherent capacities are what make us
persons; they are what separate us from all that is impersonal.
This is a non-arbitrary definition of personhood because
it does not suffer from the objections I've made against
Erin's definition because it includes as a part of the definition
the very characteristics of what it means to be a person
and it also offers a principled, rule based rationale for
applying this to any being anywhere. If an alien life form
is someday found to have these characteristics then they
too would be persons and entitled to the protections afforded
all persons by our Constitution. A non-arbitrary definition
of personhood is a requirement for just actions and laws.
Unfortunately, our country has a history of defining personhood
as it deems convenient at the moment so the definition Erin
offered does have many sad precedents.
Slaves were arbitrarily defined by Dred Scott to be less
than full persons. This was a flawed decision because what
it means to be a person is objective and Dred Scott did
not measure up to the objective reality that people with
black skin are in fact people and it was therefore overturned.
While this definition legally applied, however, the powerful
interests that wanted cheap labor were certainly satisfied
but their purposes could never justify such an arbitrary
definition.
Women were denied the right to vote even though they had
all of the capacities of persons that males had and have.
This state of affairs was certainly beneficial to those
men in power who perhaps felt their positions threatened
by the empowerment of women but such societal/cultural biases
should hold no sway in today's society. This injustice was
corrected through the eventual realization that such arbitrary
definitions of which group should possess which fundamental
rights is inherently unjust and that all persons should
enjoy the same basic rights.
The Japanese interment of WWII was certainly a convenient
social solution to a perceived threat but it was inherently
unjust because the equal treatment of all persons demands
that the presumption of innocence is a right of all persons.
Social problems need to be dealt with without sacrificing
innocent people.
These examples of past injustices caused by redefining who
is a person worthy of having certain rights should be a
warning to us. Have we really completed the work of leveling
the legal framework so that all persons have equal protection
of the laws as mandated by the Constitution? We clearly
have not as evidenced by the continued use of definitions
that arbitrarily sacrifice some group of innocent persons
for the benefit of others.
I could, for instance, arbitrarily declare that only humans
with blue eyes are persons but in doing so I would be objectively
wrong. This blue-eyed definition does not correspond to
the reality of what separates persons from non-persons and
fails just as all previous arbitrary definitions mentioned
fail. It fails because it ignores the very facts of what
it means to be a person. It describes no characteristics
that are inherent to personhood.
It is not a well known fact because of its inconvenience
to today's powerful interests, but all of the founders of
the Feminist movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B.
Anthony, Matilda Gage, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Victoria Woodhull
etc. were opposed to abortion for the same reason that they
were abolitionists. (See the book, Prolife Feminism,
Yesterday and Today.) They believed that equality achieved
on the backs of any subset of humanity is not equality at
all. And how could it be? One can not raise oneself up by
stepping on a third party and claiming equality as the goal
achieved.
The mainstream Feminist movement of today believes that
abortion is necessary for gender equity but they have conveniently
ignored the arguments of their own founders who have correctly
pointed out that the result of such an action is not equality.
Correcting the injustice of abortion is simply the latest
chapter in the continuing saga of securing equal rights
and equal treatment for all persons as is guaranteed in
the Constitution.
Of all of our rights in this country, the right to life
is one of the most fundamental. It was cited by our founders
as the first of only three "unalienable" rights
in our founding documents. As an unalienable right it is
one that can not be overridden; it can not be taken away!
There can be no question in anyone's mind that the right
of an innocent person to not be targeted for death is clearly
enshrined in our Constitution.
Yet some will claim that abortion is fine because Roe v.
Wade is the law of the land. Roe is no more a rational justification
for abortion today then Dred Scott is a rational justification
for slavery today. Dred Scott was finally recognized to
be horribly flawed and was overturned. Roe fundamentally
ignored the entire question of personhood referring only
to ancient beliefs and laws. Nothing could be more fundamental
to this issue! The fact that the unborn have the same qualifications
for personhood that you and I have is clear evidence that
Roe is as flawed as Dred Scott.
And in any case, with what justification could Roe ever
overrule an unalienable right? Justice Blackmun rationalized
his position based on the Shadow Doctrine of Griswold v.
Connecticut. This doctrine claims that there are rights
to be found in the Constitution that are not explicit but
that can be found by "reading between the lines."
From Griswold then came the 'right to privacy'. Blackmun
created the supposed right to an abortion by extending this
right to privacy with a creative use of the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment (full text: "nor shall
any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law"). Blackmun was certainly
a creative fellow.
Even if Blackmun's arguments were sound (which many even
on the pro-choice side of this issue agree were poor), can
an unalienable right be overridden by an excessively creative
interpretation of a right that itself only exists by "reading
between the lines?" If so then the protection of life
was never an unalienable right, the rights afforded all
of us by the 14th Amendment (explicitly!) are a sham and
Thomas Jefferson was incorrect when he said that, "The
care of human life and happiness and not their destruction
is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
There can be no Constitutional right to kill an innocent
person simply for one's own benefit.
Even Justice Blackmun and notably also the appellant in
Roe agreed as Blackmun wrote in Roe:
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a
"person" within the language and meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at
length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development.
If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's
case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life
would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
The appellant conceded as much on reargument.
Unless someone can rationally explain with non-arbitrary
definitions why we are not persons before our birth (even
though we are then beings with the exact same inherent capacities
to function as persons as we now possess, which is exactly
what it means to be a person) then our unalienable right
to life as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment can not be infringed
for someone else's benefit.
You, Senator Perata, can not claim to be true to your oath
to uphold the U.S. Constitution while ignoring the Equal
Protection Clause by holding to an arbitrary definition
of what it means to be a person. One can not be pro-choice
and claim to be upholding the Constitution while holding
such an arbitrary definition of personhood. Therefore, you
must have an argument in support of your position that I
have not heard before. I am asking you for that argument.
And true 'choice' is most certainly not available to so
many women who would like to have their children but abort
for lack of emotional and financial support. These women
are being compelled to abort every day; they have abortions
but not by 'choice' as the slogan goes but because they
have no choice. Women and men who are true to the founding
feminist principles of equality for all persons without
any exceptions are working toward the goal of providing
this choice every day (e.g. www.feministsforlife.org) and
they should be supported. And as a non-partisan I feel safe
in saying that if being a Liberal means giving a voice to
those persons who are not empowered then mainstream Liberalism
is on the wrong side of this issue.
Again, I am not seeking to change your opinion; I seek only
to understand your position. Please demonstrate to me that
one can be rational and pro-choice without shredding the
14th Amendment. I have yet to hear an argument, including
your Chief of Staff's argument, that satisfies this condition.
I have included a copy of my original letter
containing 3 questions on this topic that if answered
would get to the root of this discussion immediately.
"True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it
is the presence of justice."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Searching for true peace,
A Private Citizen
|
Thirty Third contact:
I left another message for Nancy to please call me back concerning
meeting with Senator Perata.
March 31, 2003
I left another message
for Nancy to please call me back concerning meeting with
Senator Perata.
|
Thirty Fourth contact:
I left another message for Nancy asking for a return call.
April 2, 2003
I left another message
for Nancy through Laura asking for a return call. I asked
Laura if she could discover an explanation for why I have
not been contacted.
|
Thirty Fifth contact:
I left yet another message for Nancy who will not return any calls.
April 3, 2003
I left a yet another
message for Nancy through Jennifer to determine the status
of my request for meeting with my representative. I also
asked if she could uncover an explanation as to why I have
been a completely ignored constituent.
|
Thirty Sixth contact:
I called Nancy again and found a brief "explanation" as
to why I have not been called back.
April 8, 2003
I left a message for Nancy to please call me back because
she was on another line. When asked why I've not received
a call back already Jennifer said that Nancy had replied
that she "has nothing to say to me" and so has
not returned my calls. Then Sora took the line and said
that Nancy had stepped out of the office and that I should
fax a request for a mtg to Nancy. This is the first time
that I had been told that standard policy for meeting with
Senator Perata was by using a fax. Perhaps Nancy could have
called to tell me this.
|
Thirty Seventh
contact: Senator Perata's Chief of Staff, Erin Niemela, followed
through on her threat and I received a call from the California
Highway Patrol.
|
That the office of Senator Don Perata
would resort to what many would consider political intimidation
rather than engaging in the democratic process is utterly
disgraceful. |
April 11, 2003
I received a call from a Sgt. of the California Highway
Patrol concerning my attempts to engage the debate with
Senator Perata's office. Senator Don Perata's Chief of Staff,
Erin Niemela, had lived up to her
threat of calling the California Highway Patrol rather
than engage with a constituent.
The officer made the point
that by law representatives do not have to answer any of
my questions but that this is not a statement of the rightness
or wrongness of their actions. I agreed with the Sgt.'s
distinction completely. They are not obligated by law to
try and justify their irrational positions to those that
they represent but as Representatives they are absolutely
WRONG not to do so.
Having hit the brick wall
with Senator Perata's office I had already begun composing
a closing fax detailing my plans to publish their absolute
refusal to engage this debate and how such actions are perfectly
contrary to a representative democracy. I informed the Sgt.
of my documentation of this entire exchange, my plan to
publish it and of my intention to fax this final summary
to Senator Perata's office and he was perfectly fine with
such contact.
|
Thirty Eighth contact:
I faxed a summary letter of my documentation of these attempts to
engage this debate and my intention to publish the results. The
entire ordeal is summarized.
April 13, 2003
Senator Don Perata
1515 Clay St. #2202
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Senator Perata,
This letter is to inform you that my contacts with your
office over the last two years are a part of a study soon
to be published measuring the willingness of a number of
elected representatives to engage in rational debate with
those that they represent. This study will be published
on the World Wide Web at www.engagethedebate.com.
To date the office of Senator Perata currently has the worst
record of engagement of all surveyed representatives. In
38 contacts with this office over the test period of nearly
two years there has not been even a single attempt to officially
respond to the constituent's specific questions aimed at
clarifying a given policy position held by you.
There was a time in
our nation's history when honest discussions of matters
of great importance were not so studiously avoided. Almost
one hundred and fifty years ago Abraham Lincoln and Stephen
Douglas held a series of seven debates that were dedicated
almost exclusively to slavery, one of the most contentious
social issues in our nation's history and one that many
people also considered "settled" law. These ~20
hours of detailed political discourse are an example of
the kind of debate that is an essential part of a democracy.
The resistance of elected officials to engage in policy
debate today is inexcusable and such was the inspiration
for this study.
This study will include
all correspondence and summaries of all conversations held
with each representative's office. An overview of the 38
contacts made to date with your office over this two year
period is as follows:
• 5 written attempts
by the constituent to engage the Senator in rational dialogue
by asking the Senator to clarify his position on a given
policy. The office of Senator Perata has, to date, not made
any official reply to these specific questions that are
fundamental to the issue at hand.
• 1 generic reply
to constituent's questions that did not even attempt to
address the specific questions asked. This is the standard
type of letter received when an elected representative does
not wish to engage with the constituent.
• 1 conversation
with your scheduler, Nancy, who said that my questions had
been answered with your generic reply. This is obviously
false as the questions asked were not addressed.
• 18 calls made
by the constituent over a 10 month period to set up a meeting
with the Senator in an attempt to engage. Messages had to
be left on every occasion for your scheduler was otherwise
disposed each and every time. This high number of messages
was necessitated by the fact that not even a single call
was returned. This is inexcusable and demonstrates a complete
disregard for the constituent.
• 1 promising
call from the Senator's Chief of Staff where the issue was
debated in some detail but not in any official capacity.
The Chief of Staff promised to bring this issue to your
attention but the call was cut short (cell phone battery
expired) before an expected reply date could be requested.
• 7 calls by
the constituent to the Chief of Staff in order to get an
estimated reply date. This number of calls over a period
of 6 weeks was also necessitated by the fact that not even
a single call was again ever returned even though a written
reply was already promised by your Chief of Staff. Your
staff can not legitimately complain of having received so
many calls while at the same time also refusing to return
any calls.
• 1 call by the
constituent that was coincidentally answered by the Chief
of Staff. The Chief of Staff said that she could not give
me an estimated date and that she considered my calls (the
7 mentioned above spanning 6 weeks) to the office "stalking"
and that she may call the California Highway Patrol if I
dared call the office again! Again, if any of my calls were
actually returned there would be no reason to call again.
• 2 letters written
by the constituent seeking a response and apology for the
"stalker" comment. No replies were received.
• 1 recent call
from the California Highway Patrol at the request of the
Senator's office. Does your office so fear rational questioning
of your policy positions that it feels obligated to call
in the California Highway Patrol? I would suggest that replying
to reasoned questions with reasoned answers is a far better
alternative than wasting the time of the CHP with calls
that some may consider an intimidation tactic initiated
by your office. The officer said that while your office
is not required by law to answer my queries, he pointed
out that this does not speak to the rightness or wrongness
of your office's willingness to do so. The officer's distinction
is perfectly valid. While your obligation to try and justify
policy positions is not a legal requirement it is a requirement
of our representative democracy. By ignoring attempts to
seek clarification of your position your office undermines
the very meaning of democratic, representational government.
• This letter.
To summarize, the constituent
was only contacted directly by your office on two occasions.
The first was a simple letter that did not address the issues
raised by the constituent. The second was a call from the
Chief of Staff who chose to not speak for the Senator in
an official capacity without your input but then failed
to get your input as promised. This level of interaction
by a representative to the represented is completely inadequate.
Engagement in rational policy discussion is fundamental
to our democratic system. If there are any members of your
staff who do not believe that one of the primary purposes
of the office of an elected representative is to serve those
that are represented then they are seriously mistaken and
this includes answering honest, rational questions.
If the Senator feels
that this record does not adequately represent his office
then please let me know where my records may be in error.
I would also like to offer some constructive advice:
• Adequately
explain why you hold the positions that you do on controversial
topics (e.g. a white paper) and publish such information
in a public place such as on your web page. This would allow
you to direct interested constituents to this information
with a minimum of effort for your staff.
• Honestly engage
your constituents. The repetitive contact required in this
study was only necessary because of the stonewalling behavior
of your office.
• If a reply
is promised to the constituent, please follow through.
• And if this
truly need to be said, if you refuse to provide any more
information for your constituent, please pay them the civil
courtesy of a letter or phone call explaining that no more
information will be forthcoming. While undemocratic in nature
this is a better alternative that responding to rational
debate with what many would call attempted intimidation
using the police.
And for your information,
in my recent conversation with the CHP officer, I told him
of this study and of my intention to send this summary letter
and he was perfectly fine with such contact.
In his first debate
on August 21, 1858, Abraham Lincoln said the following regarding
his debating partner Senator Stephen Douglas:
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.
This statement is just
as true today Senator Perata. Engage the debate.
This is the last time that I will initiate contact on this
subject with your office.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
|
There has been no response.
Please send your comments and
questions to
info@EngageTheDebate.com
|
