May 30, 2001

Barbara Lee
1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N
Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Barbara Lee,

As my representative in the U.S. Congress, 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.

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:

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 Congress.

Sincerely,

A Private Citizen

Barbara Lee's form letter reply does not address any of my stated concerns. As frequently happens, my letter is regarded simply as a statement of an opinion instead of addressing the questions that I asked.

June 30, 2001

Thank you for contacting me with your views concerning abortion. I appreciate you taking the time to write me about this subject.

While the debate surrounding abortion and a women's reproductive right is highly sensitive and complex, I respect everyone's personal conviction regarding this issue.

I am prochoice and I support a women's right to reproductive freedom. This stance is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. On January 22, 1973 Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court on Roe v. Wade, which concluded that a fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment and that the state may not justify restrictions on abortion. Additionally, in one of the Supreme Court's first decisions regarding the right to personal privacy in 1891, the Court ruled that, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others..."

It is a common goal of those on both sides on the debate to make abortions less necessary and more rare. I support family planning services that help us to accomplish this goal, as they provide women and families with vital counseling and services that prevent the need for abortions and ensure that women are educated about all of her options.

Thank you for sharing your perspective with me on this issue. I enjoyed hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Barbara Lee
Member of Congress

July 5, 2001

Barbara Lee
1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N
Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Barbara Lee,

This is a response to your June 27, 2001 form letter sent to me in an attempt to address my concerns over your position on abortion. Unfortunately, I can not tell if anyone actually read my letter because in the first paragraph I had mentioned that I had three specific questions that I would like answered and that I did not wish to receive a form letter in reply. Your form letter did not answer my questions and so I am giving you another opportunity to do so. My questions should be easily answered by anyone who has a strong opinion on the matter, such as you.

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 Congress.
My previous letter is enclosed.

Sincerely,

A Private Citizen

October 6, 2001

Barbara Lee
1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N
Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Barbara Lee,

On June 27, 2001 you replied to my May 30th letter to you regarding abortion. Unfortunately, your form letter did not address any of the questions that I had asked you on the subject and after asking again for a clarification on July 5th I have not yet received a reply.

Discussion between a constituent and their representative is an essential part of a democracy. A form letter reply is not a discussion.

I have enclosed my original letter and would like to give you another opportunity to reply or perhaps we should schedule some time to get together to discuss this issue. I am asking for answers to only a few simple questions that anyone with an opinion as strongly held as yours should be able to quickly answer. Thank you.

Sincerely,

A Private Citizen

February 2, 2002

Barbara Lee
1301 Clay Street, Suite 1000N
Oakland, CA 94612

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

October 24, 2002

After 16 months of being ignored I called the office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee and requested the necessary form in order to set up an appointment with her.

October 25, 2002

I filled out the obligatory form and sent in my request to meet with the Congresswoman.

November 26, 2002

After another month of being ignored I called the office and left a message for the scheduler, Sandra Andrews, to see what the status of my requested meeting was.

November 26, 2002

The scheduler returned my call and said that I would be contacted by the person in charge of health issues, Michael Rubiano. After seven straight contacts, this is the first response that I received from this office in 17 months.

November 26, 2002

Michael Rubiano, the person in Congresswoman Barbara Lee's local office in charge of health issues, gave me a call and he asked what my specific questions for the Congresswoman were. After detailing them at some length he felt that these were very good questions and that I should send them to the Washington office to the attention of Aysha House as a policy/legislative question for an official reply. He did not attempt to reply to these questions in any capacity.

February 5, 2003

Now almost 21 months into this process, I find myself sending my original questions to another recipient. I e-mailed my original questions to the attention of Aysha House in the Washington office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

March 31, 2003

After hearing nothing back after nearly two more months, I called the Washington office to see if everything was in order. I requested a return contact by leaving a message for Aysha House.

April 11, 2003

I called and spoke with Aysha House concerning my letter. She said that she remembers having seen the letter and said that she would look into it. I again left my contact information.

April 28, 2003

I phoned Aysha House again and left her a voicemail concerning the status of the requested response. I again left contact information.

April 30, 2003

I again phoned Aysha House to check on the status of a reply. I again left contact information.

May 8, 2003

I spoke with Aysha House who again asked that I send the same questions to her again, questions that I had now originally sent to the office of Barbara Lee almost 2 full years ago and which I have resent on multiple occasions.

May 9, 2003

I again sent my original questions (via fax) to the office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, this time almost two years since I had first sent them.

May 16, 2003

I called Aysha House to confirm receipt of the requested fax and ask when I may expect a reply. I again left contact information although this office has not yet used it.

May 20, 2003

I again left a message with Aysha House concerning the requested fax. I again left contact information.

May 27, 2003

I left another message with Aysha House detailing how difficult it is to get a response from the office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee after two years and suggested that a common courtesy contact was in order.

May 30, 2003

I received a phone call from Julie Little, Legislative Director of the Washington office, who told me that she would send a reply next week. She apologized for the delay in a response.

June 20, 2003

After not receiving the reply that the Legislative Director, Julie Little, said would be on its way, I called to find the status of this reply. I left Julie a message.

June 25, 2003

I again did not hear back from Julie Little so I called her again and left her a message. I asked if this was indeed the end. I have not heard back.