Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Open letter to Sen. Obama

Read it all, here.
You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:

1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?

2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?

3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?

If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?

Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.

Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?

Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you, Matt, for posting it!!
God bless you!

March 4, 2008 at 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the outset of this post let me say that I am against abortion. I do my best to embrace non-violence and that includes being against the suffering caused by factory farming (I’m a vegetarian/vegan) and the useless war in Iraq.

Having said that, I’d like to address an open letter to John McCain:

Senator McCain, I’d like to ask you three questions:

1.The health of every child is important not just the health of wealthy, white Republican children. Do you believe this?

2.The children who live in poverty. Are they human too?

3.The blood of poor, uninsured children. Is it as important as the blood of wealthy Republican children?

In your vision for America Senator McBush, you have tried to deny health care to children at every turn. Is this Republican “equal protection under the law”?

Let’s look at your record:
----------------------------------
McCain Opposed Reauthorizing of the SCHIP and Providing Insurance For Millions of Uninsured Children. McCain voted against reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion. It would cover children in households with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty line. [Senate Vote #307, 8/2/07]
McCain Claimed the Reauthorization Covered Too Many Children. In a speech on the Senate floor regarding the authorization of SCHIP, McCain claimed "the program has expanded beyond what Congress first intended. In some cases, SCHIP coverage has been extended to middle-income children and to certain adult populations." [Congressional Record, 8/2/07]
2005: McCain Chose Tax Breaks For Wealthy Americans Instead of Funding SCHIP. McCain voted against a sense of the senate motion that expressed that the Senate should not extend the 15 percent dividend and capital gains tax rates for high-income taxpayers until the federal government provides funding to state and local entities to enroll children in SCHIP. [Senate Vote #337, 11/17/05]
1997: McCain Voted Against Providing Health Insurance To Low Income Children. McCain voted against increasing the tobacco tax to provide more money to help insure low and moderate income children. [Senate Vote #76, 5/21/1997]
1995: McCain Voted to Eliminate Vaccines for Children's Program. McCain voted for the 1995 Republican budget that repealed the Vaccines for Children Program. The Vaccines for Children Program provides free and discounted vaccines to children as a means of increasing childhood immunization rates. President Clinton vetoed this GOP budget bill. [Senate CQ Vote #584, 11/17/95; DPC Legislative Bulletin, H.R. 2491, 11/17/95; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/95, p. 3540]
1995: McCain Voted to Drastically Cut Health Care for Children. McCain voted for the 1995 GOP budget that would have repealed guaranteed coverage of preventative, primary care and hospital services for about 18 million children. The $170 billion Medicaid cut proposed by the GOP would have drastically reduced the availability of preventive, primary, and hospital care for poor children. In addition, the GOP proposal in the 1995 budget to block grant Medicaid would have left states at risk for 100 percent of unanticipated increases in the need for health care due to economic downturns, inflation, population changes, communicable disease outbreaks, or other circumstances. [Senate CQ Vote #584, 11/17/95; DPC Legislative Bulletin, H.R. 2491, 11/17/95; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/95, p. 3540]
-----------------------------------
It's always a tragic thing to give "too many children" health care coverage isn't it?

Never raise taxes on tobacco to help cover health care for children. That cuts into the profits of big tobacco corporations and Jesus, pro-corporate conservative that he is, would not like that.

Come on Christians...there is life BEYOND the womb. It's not as chic and trendy to stand in front of the politicians house who voted against child health care and yell at him as it is to stand in front of an abortion clinic and scream at poor, frightened girls. I realize this. But why not do it anyway....just for the kids.

March 5, 2008 at 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to enjoy reading the posts on this blog, but there are a few people that have started regularly posting on here that continually state how hateful we "Fundamentalists" are. This commonly held (mis)perception lends itself to accusations and generalizations about us that show the commenter to be truly uninformed and (usually) self-absorbed.
If some of these individuals would actually take the time to get to know a true, God loving, people serving, Christian they just might find that we are not so ignorant and hateful.
I have found that even a devoted Athiest and I can agree to disagree without calling each other names. This does not seem to be the case with many of the posters here.
Stating how we do not love children of poverty because we do not provide healthcare for them is not only mistaken, it is a flat out fabrication of an untruth. The county Health Dept gives out vaccinations almost every day of the week.
Any person in America can walk into an emergency room and get world-class treatment.
To say that I have to pay for someone else's child to receive more of what they already get for free is ludicrous.
Expanding "free" healthcare is just another way to get more people dependent on U. Sam and therefore less likely to make much of anything of their own lives.
I just spent a few days in Mexico, not on vacation, and found to be true what I have always thought. If an American thinks he/she is poor, that person needs to wake up and see what poor is.
There are many things wrong with the way Republicans seem to give businesses too many breaks, but I would rather a company get a break and help put food on my table instead of me having to scrounge for enough to just get by like so many others throughout this world have to do.
It has been a joy conversing with many of you (aedney especially), but the hate from the other side of the room is just about too much to make it worth it.
I plan on checking in occasionally, but until civility from the left returns, I do not think that I can post any further.

With God's love and mine,
Larry from Lumberton

March 5, 2008 at 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry,

I can't speak for others but I hope you don't misunderstand my posts.

I am blunt because I truly believe that the religious right has taken this country down a very dangerous path. I truly believe that the ultimate goal is a theocratical dictatorship in which America is ruled by people like Pat Robertson, and the late D. James Kennedy.

Having said that I do know that there are MANY individual Christians who reflect the values of love and charity in their lives. My own parents are such peopl. More and more of these people are beginning to ask "is Jesus really a Republican?"

I'd like to address a few of your comments.

You wrote:

"Stating how we do not love children of poverty because we do not provide healthcare for them is not only mistaken, it is a flat out fabrication of an untruth."

Both Bush and McCain opposed funding of SCHIP because it would give "too many children" healthcare coverage.

I've listed all the times McCain came out against child healthcare.

I don't recall any outrage coming from the Fundamentalist Christian community.

You wrote:
"Any person in America can walk into an emergency room and get world-class treatment."

If they are not insured, how do they pay the bill? How do they get the drugs they need?

You wrote:
"Expanding 'free' healthcare is just another way to get more people dependent on U. Sam and therefore less likely to make much of anything of their own lives."

One of the reasons I supported John Edwards was that he was upfront about the need for a tax increase to fund healthcare. So it isn't free.

I don't get how making sure people have basic healthcare will make them give up on making anything of their lives. Do people with health insurance become lazy?

You wrote:
" If an American thinks he/she is poor, that person needs to wake up and see what poor is."

Maybe your trip to Mexico was a view of what America will be like a few generations down the road when the national debt is 40 trillion dollars. We need to pay as we go and if that means a tax increase (instead of borrowing foreign money) so be it.

You wrote:
"It has been a joy conversing with many of you (aedney especially), but the hate from the other side of the room is just about too much to make it worth it."

I don't understand? The name of this site is "In the Fight". Matt wants all of you to FIGHT people like me. Sort of like we were on a grade school playground I guess.

Now the fight goes just fine as long as liberals, Democrats, atheists, gays and lesbians etc. will take a beating and keep their mouths shut. But the second we fight back and refuse to be silent and just take it...well then we are all about hate. Our tone is "wrong". We are heaping "persecution" on Christians.

If this is nothing more than a mutual admiration society, maybe I'M the one that should not post anymore.

March 5, 2008 at 10:31 PM  
Blogger Loren said...

I think these questions to Sen. Obama express the issue in strikingly clear terms. And clearly he won't be answering them. Our unsupporting friend on the blog however has simply shifted to a laundry list of other questions. Not that the other questions are not valid necessarily (the power of the tobacco lobby in particular). But they are definitely not addressing the issue, and therefore not really useful.

March 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home