|
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 Dianne Feinstein, CA
After nearly two years and
16 contacts with Senator Feinstein's office, she has refused
to engage in the democratic process. Over that time her
office has replied essentially with 3 form letters which,
of course, do not address any of my stated concerns. Such
complete disregard for a constituent's genuine concerns
on an issue of such great importance is inexcusable from
a person who purports to represent. (19 contacts)
|
Summary of Contacts:
 First contact: To Senator Dianne Feinstein from a private citizen.
May 30, 2001
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Dianne Feinstein,
As my representative in the U.S. Senate,
I would like to better understand your pro-choice position
by getting answers to 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
Dianne Feinstein did not reply so another message sent on 10/6/01.
(This message has unfortunately been lost.)
Third contact: Still no
reply so another attempt made.
February 2, 2002
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Dianne Feinstein,
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 except for an unacceptable
form letter. 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: After
three contacts spanning 10 months, a simple, content-free e-mail
form letter reply was received.
|
Senator Dianne Feinstein's form
letter reply is probably sent to anyone who disagrees
with her on this issue. It, of course, does not even attempt
to answer the fundamental questions contained in the original
correspondence demonstrating a complete lack of engagement
in the democratic process. |
March 6, 2002
Thank you very much for writing to me about
your opposition to a woman's right to choose. I realize that
many people take positions on this issue through deeply held
religious and moral convictions, and I respect your right
to disagree with me.
I strongly support the U.S. Supreme Court's
landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The Roe decision balanced
the interests of women to make highly personal reproductive
decisions and the protection of unborn children. The Court
held that the government may not interfere with a woman's
reproductive choice during the first trimester of pregnancy.
During the second trimester, the government may regulate a
woman's right to an abortion. And, in the third trimester,
the government may prohibit abortions, but must make exceptions
if needed to protect a woman's life or health.
I am sorry we are not in agreement on this
issue. I value your input and please know that I will work
hard to represent the best interests of California and the
nation in the Senate. If you have further questions, please
call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
|
Fifth contact: Called the
Senator's office seeking clarification of her position.
|
Spoke with Charity who was not exactly
polite. She refused to entertain the idea that they might
still have my letter and simply insisted that I resubmit.
She suggested I could wait on hold for 20 minutes while she
checked and when I suggested she could call me back she said
she could find out in 1 minute. She promptly discovered that
they didn't have my letter...
She suggested that I may want to contact
the legislative analyst for this issue.
|
Sixth contact: Resent my
questions via the web form on her site.
|
November 6, 2002
Hello,
I initially sent this letter a year and
a half ago. I have been sent form letters in reply that do
not answer my specific and very relevant questions. I have
repeatedly asked for answers in correspondence dated 10/6/01
and 2/2/02. Anyone who has a position
on the abortion issue should have answers to these questions
and I would appreciate a full reply. As your constituent I
think I deserve honest answers and not 30 second sound bites.
Thank you.
My original letter
is included.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
|
Seventh contact:
Received a simple e-mail reply "valuing my opinion". I'm
seeking clarification of your position, Senator, not offering an
opinion.
|
|
Senator Dianne Feinstein's second
form letter also does not even attempt to address any
of the questions posed. |
November 25, 2002
Thank you for contacting my office again
to follow up on
your concerns about a woman's right to choose.
Be assured that I do value your opinion
and appreciate how
strongly you feel about this issue. Comments like yours help
me to
make the most informed decisions on issues of importance to
you,
to California, and to the entire nation.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
|
Eighth contact: Replied
with another e-mail asking for clarification of her position.
|
November 25, 2002
Dear Dianne Feinstein,
In your reply (of 11/25/2002)
to my questions (originally dated 5/30/2001)
you simply thanked me for offering my opinion. The purpose
of each of the 4 pieces of correspondence that I've sent is
not to offer my opinion but to solicit information
concerning your position. You did not answer any of
my questions and so now I know no more than I did before.
Do you feel that elected representatives
are free from any obligation to explain why they hold
the positions that they do? This is what I infer from your
reply.
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held
more than 20 hours of public debate on issues surrounding
slavery, the most contentious social issue of their day, and
you are unwilling to answer just three fundamental questions
concerning your position on abortion. Has our democracy changed
or are you simply unwilling to support your position?
I am trying to be a good citizen in our
democracy by engaging in a relevant discussion of national
importance. So I ask for the fourth time, please provide me,
your constituent, the answers that I have requested so that
I can better understand your position.
I have included my initial
correspondence of a year and a half ago containing my
three questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
|
Ninth contact: Received
an e-mail reply that I should submit questions via her web form
which is exactly where I had been submitting.
|
November 27, 2002
Thank
you so much for contacting me to share your thoughts and
concerns.
Currently I receive approximately 30,000
letters and e-mails a week,
but due to system
requirements, I am unable to adequately address messages that
are not sent
directly through my
website.
If you wish to receive a response to your
concerns, please e-mail me
at http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Again, please accept my apologies for this
inconvenience. I value
your opinion and I look
forward to your next e-mail.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
[Note: The place to which I was supposed
to send my correspondence is exactly where it was submitted
the first time.]
|
Tenth contact: Again resubmitted
a letter via her web form seeking a clarification of her position.
(These first 10 contacts span over a year and a half.)
|
December 23, 2002
Re: Does anyone read these?
Dear Dianne Feinstein,
In order to get further clarification of
your position, I had asked you several questions starting
over a year and a half ago (original dated 5/30/2001).
Your replies simply thank me for offering my opinion but ignore
the fact that it is additional information that I seek.
I am trying to be a good citizen in our
democracy by engaging in a relevant discussion of national
importance. So I ask for the fifth time, please provide me,
your constituent, the answers that I have requested so that
I can better understand your position.
I have included my initial
correspondence of over a year and a half ago containing
my three questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
|
Eleventh contact: Played
phone tag with Kristen Steinke and finally we spoke in person.
|
March 10, 2003
After several calls back and forth Kristen
Steinke, the Senator's legal analyst on this issue, and
I finally spoke. She provided me with her fax number where
I could send my letter.
|
Twelfth contact: Sent
a fax of my original letter to Kristen
Steinke.
Thirteenth contact:
Left a message for Kristen asking about the status of the fax.
|
March 31, 2003
I left a message for Kristen checking
on the status of the fax that I had sent to be sure that it
had arrived as there were some fax communication issues. I
asked for a response.
|
Fourteenth contact:
Received a message from Kristen concerning the fax.
|
April 1, 2003
Kristen called back and left a message
that she had received the fax and was working on a response.
|
Fifteenth contact:
Received another form letter with some supplemental material.
|
April 9, 2002
Thank you very much for your letter of
March 25, 2003 regarding your opposition to a woman's right
to choose. I realize that many people take positions on this
issue through deeply held religious and moral convictions.
Respectfully, we disagree on this issue..
As you know, I strongly support the U.S.
Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
The Roe decision balanced the interests of women to
make highly personal reproductive decisions and the protection
of unborn children. The Court held that the government may
not interfere with a woman's reproductive choice during the
first trimester of pregnancy. During the second trimester,
the government may regulate a woman's right to an abortion
post viability. And, in the third trimester, the government
may prohibit abortions, but must make exceptions if needed
to protect a woman's life or health. For your information,
I have included a Congressional Research Service report on
case law regarding a woman's right to choose.
I am sorry we are not in agreement on this
issue. I value your input and please know that I will work
hard to represent the best interests of California and the
nation in the Senate. If you have further questions, please
call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841. Additional
legislative information may be found on my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
[This form letter was accompanied by
a 15 page Issue Brief for Congress on abortion. It contained
very generic historical information and contained no information
on Senator Feinstein's position which is what this dialog
is supposed to be about.]
|
Sixteenth contact:
Replied with a letter concerning the central issue in this debate
as admitted even by Justice Blackmun: the personhood of the unborn.
April 27, 2002
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Dianne Feinstein,
Thank you for your reply
of April 9, 2003, and for the Congressional Research Service
report on the legislative history of abortion. It is a nice
summary but it unfortunately does not answer any of the
questions that I have asked.
My central question is truly
fundamental to the issue of abortion as 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.
Justice Blackmun, of course,
concluded that the unborn were not persons and contained
in the material you sent was essentially the justification
that Justice Blackmun used in denying personhood to the
unborn:
The Court emphasized that,
given the fact that in the major part of the 19th century
prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than
today, the Court was persuaded "that the word 'person',
as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the
unborn."
This logic is absolutely
flawed for it suggests that a definition for what it means
to be a person can reasonably be inferred from past legal
practices and this is clearly untrue. When Dred Scott was
the law of the land the established legal practices were
against the equal treatment of persons of African descent
but such practices were clearly contrary to the objective
fact that those of African descent are persons just like
you and I and were entitled to equal treatment. And yet
Dred Scott was overturned.
Additionally, civil rights
legislation was completely contrary to past legal practices
regarding those of African descent which should make clear
that what it means to be a person entitled to equal treatment
can not be derived from past legal practices.
If reference to past practices
were a rational way to determine who is deserving of equal
treatment then women would also never have won the right
to vote. Yet women did win that right even though our constitution
does not explicitly define what it means to be a person
so as to include women as equal participants in the eyes
of the law.
It is quite clear that rights
have justifiably been granted by the courts in the past
based on the recognition that persoonhood is an objective
state and not a shifting, subjectively inferred quality
determined from past practice; the constitution does not
need an explicit definition for just decisions to be made
in this regard as all civil rights have slowly become more
justly realized in our country.
So the question before us
now is how do you, a pro-choice Senator, define personhood
non-arbitrarily such that we are not persons at some point
before our birth? Failed attempts at personhood definitions
in the past have used race, religion and gender as defining
characteristics but such definitions all fail because they
don't even attempt to include the characteristics fundamental
to the defined object which is what all definitions require.
I will offer a definition
as an example. A person is a being with the inherent capacity
to think, feel, emote, reason, recognize truth and beauty,
be conscious, understand themselves to be an "I",
and all of those other functions commonly associated with
persons. This definition quite simply separates all that
is impersonal from all that is personal.
It is an objective fact that
unborn human beings have the exact same inherent capacities
of personhood that born human beings have since each is
the same being simply at different stages of development.
They can't demonstrate these abilities but neither can you
or I while unconscious; you and I retain our personhood
in full while unconscious because our inherent capacities
for functioning as persons are completely retained even
though we may lack the immediate capacity to demonstrate
these attributes; 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.
Now as Justice Blackmun wrote
in Roe, if the unborn are persons then their rights are
enshrined explicitly in the equal protection clause of the
14th amendment. Therefore those who are pro-choice today
must have a definition of what it means to be a person that
excludes the unborn.
While Justice Blackmun's
stated "definition" of what constitutes being
a person was plainly false, he was absolutely correct in
stating that personhood is central to this debate. This
is why I am requesting such a definition from you, Senator
Feinstein.
Unless someone can rationally
explain with non-arbitrary definitions why we are not persons
before our birth then our unalienable right to life as guaranteed
by the 14th Amendment can not be infringed for someone else's
benefit.
I have included a copy of
my original correspondence as it contains a more complete
discussion of this and related points.
I look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
A Private Citizen
|
Seventeenth contact:
After a month and a half without a reply to my fax I called Kristen.
She couldn't find the fax and asked me to resend.
June 10, 2003
After a month and a half
without a reply to my fax I called Kristen. She couldn't find
the fax and asked me to resend.
|
Eighteenth contact:
I refaxed my letter concerning the personhood of the unborn.
June 12, 2003
I refaxed my letter concerning
the personhood of the unborn.
|
Nineteenth contact:
I again called Kristen and left a message inquiring as to whether
my fax was received. I have not received a return call.
June 16, 2003
I
again called Kristen and left a message inquiring as to whether
my fax was received.
|
I have not been contacted since.
Please send your comments and
questions to
info@EngageTheDebate.com
|
