No On HR 3: My Letter

I've written my congressman, John Lewis, asking him to uphold his commitment to being pro-choice, which I'm glad he is. For those of you who do not know, House bill 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, is a completely fucked up assault on the victims of rape. I can't say better how and why than Sady can, and what follows after the jump is my first draft of the letter I'm sending my congressman, in case you want ideas for how to communicate with your already pro-choice congressperson if you have one. There will be a link to both Sady's post in the sidebar and a resource to find your district representative for as long as it is necessary. I urge you to follow Tiger Beatdown for details as they emerge. In your own letters, please follow the three Ps: Polite, Professional, Persuasive.


The Following is a draft and may contain mistakes and differ from what I ultimately send:

 

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I'm writing to you about HR 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. As a constituent of your district I'm aware of your strong pro-choice voting record, and applaud it. I hope you will continue to show your support for the rights of women by voting NO on this bill when you get that opportunity. I further urge you to do whatever is in your power to commune with your Democrat brethren who have made the sad choice to sponsor this bill. I would urge you to do whatever you can to attenuate their support, and urge them to consider that the bill has no chance of passing in the Senate, and that it would be a mistake for them to so boldly align themselves with a bill that penalizes the female survivors of rape.

Here is what I also urge you to remind your more misguided fellow party members, and those in the opposition who will listen: In this economy, people in your district and other are having a hard enough time making ends meet. Medical costs can consume a significant part of a person's income, and the only relief some people can find is in the kindness and charity of others. A victim of rape --and I would note that the bill is uses a term that has no meaning and is inherently redundant, “forcible rape”-- or incest is going to be suffering already. To have to bear her rapist's child is to place an unbearable cruelty on her shoulders. While some women have the strength, the fortitude, and the ability to bring such pregnancies to term, we cannot expect this of all women. We cannot expect them to bring a persistent reminder of their own suffering into this world. Since the term “forcible rape” is not one used by law enforcement, it introduces a level of uncertainty and vagueness about what constitutes rape under this oppressive Act and and almost guarantees that victims of rape can be guaranteed not to find exception under this law.

In fact a bill like this is completely unnecessary, since both the Hyde and the Stupak-Pitts amendments. The only purpose this bill serves in both its language and likely intent is to place limitations on the already sparse exceptions. The great tragedy and tremendous injustice of these exceptions is that they specifically target the individuals who are at their most vulnerable: The poorer victims of rape. Not only that, but the term “forcible rape” will likely be construed so narrowly that only the most vicious and violent rapes, the kind that often result in death of the victim, will be considered. The term ignores the fact that all rapes are inherently forcible, for that is the very definition of rape. The violence of a rape is not measurable as a distinct quantity, and the estimations of rough justice is no justice at all for the victims of these crimes. I urge you Mr. Lewis, to do all you can to communicate this to your fellow congresspeople. Even those Republicans who sponsor the bill. I have had success in communicating my take on supposedly “socially divisive” concerns to our Republican Senator Isakson in the past, and am hopeful that at least some across the isle may be able to see the light on this issue.

Sincerely,

[Name]

[Address]