March 29, 2007
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
Dear Senator Kennedy,
I was at the
You are involved in many
quality-of-life issues, and this is a good thing. But without insuring
the right to life first while recognizing each person as deserving of it, a
focus on the quality of life in the long run makes for a barbaric society that
pats itself on the back for recognizing and assisting only those arbitrarily
defined as persons who are marginalized or in need, while even assisting to
murder those whose categories have deteriorated as such under the law because
appropriately recognizing these as human beings is deemed too
inconvenient. Quality of life is not more than life itself, and there is
nothing civil about putting life itself after anything
else. Rather, understanding the right to life for all serves as the
foundation from which one can best serve all other life issues, including
determining what these are, to insure a true quality to life for all,
that is, insuring justice and the rights of all.
You were baptized a Catholic,
Senator Kennedy, and you should be pro-life, but you are not. Pro-life is
not merely taking a position on the issue of abortion to accommodate or obtain
a constituency but rather a way of life that recognizes every individual’s
inalienable rights, something with which you say you are concerned. It is
not the case that what is termed as “reproductive rights” would outrank the
definition of what a human being is or a person’s life, no matter how small or
weak the person. It is wrong to place heavy loads on people’s backs and
not lift a finger to help them, but it is heinous to focus on insuring the
license inherent in “reproductive rights” as though this were an inalienable
right while disregarding the very life of those who cannot speak for
themselves, the most defenseless among us. If one does not defend such as
the unborn, then one has done worse than return to the days of slavery, when
one’s humanness was determined by some arbitrary prejudice, such as how white a
person is.
It’s not judicial activism to
interpret the laws to also protect the unborn (including those conceived as a
result of rape or other atrocities committed by one human being against another
for which the unborn is not at fault), but rather a matter of correct
definition so as to effect protecting them first because to insure the defense
of the most defenseless is the basis of a just society. To omit such a
defense speaks to who we have become and makes for an unfavorable impression on
those who look to our nation as a leader of nations and example, the land of
the free and the home of the brave, rather than reflect poorly upon those
hapless unborn against whom we are unconscionably negligent and violent so as
to represent them as non-persons or inconvenient.
And neither is abortion, or the
murder of a defenseless person so as to treat him as a non-person by going so
far as to make such atrocity legal as it pertains to a targeted group, a
religious issue, even though many religions would take a strong position on
it. It’s a matter of justice; and laws are the only thing protecting
vulnerable persons when there is a danger to them. And so it is important
that the law is interpreted correctly to insure the safety and rights of such
persons because this would defend us all. After all, even once outside
the womb, no one is immune to becoming defenseless.
This is the true definition of
pro-life and it is in fact what our founding fathers intended by the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And the enforcement of such
laws should be dependable, and the lack of enforcement easily
prosecutable. When we the people of this nation establish laws, we are
entitled to their reliable enforcement per correct interpretation, and should
be safe from the manipulation of definitions to accommodate special interests
or agendas. Certainly, that has happened as regards issues termed as
“reproductive rights” in particular.
And, Senator Kennedy, our
government does not need to be Catholic-ruled to be a just
government. Neither does a Catholic need to depart from the requirements
of his faith to serve our government well. Rather, being Catholic should
be useful in discerning and making accurate distinctions so as to be all the
more effective in obtaining just government. A just government is based
on doing unto others as one would have them do unto oneself and Christ was not
the first human being to come up with this line of reasoning but rather it is
written in the hearts of men by God Himself and all can understand it.
But those supporting legal abortion have forgotten that the unborn qualify as
“others” equal to ourselves, and that those who are unpopular or inconvenient
cannot be redefined into non-persons by those who are being inconvenienced or
who are in control or more numerous or willing to do the necessary to insure a
particular interest because this is the law of the jungle. And the law of
the jungle was not the intent of our Founding Fathers, notwithstanding any
personal errors of theirs.
Your mother was considered a saint
by many, and she was known to pray Rosaries unceasingly. Rosaries reflect
on the lives of Jesus and Mary, which reflection serves to assist people in
becoming integrated persons by internalizing over time the good example
contained in the scripturally-based Mysteries. One does not have to be
Catholic to be an integrated person, but Catholics have the advantage of the
fullness of Truth because Catholics are custodian to the Blessed Sacrament,
which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ physically present in the
Tabernacle under the species of bread and wine. Therefore,
notwithstanding that abortion is not a religious issue and that one does not
need to be Catholic to have integrity, Catholics in particular have no excuse
for lacking integrity. Catholics should be all the more just and
effective public servants.
Understanding the right to life is
the platform from which one can understand all other issues and know how to
insure true justice in all areas of life. And if one can intellectualize
that there is ever a need to murder the child yet in the womb and doesn’t see
that this is wrong, one is lacking what is essential in serving the public no
matter how many good things one is doing. The license to have sex does
not outrank responsibility for engaging in such. And if it is the woman’s
right to own her body and determine how it is used, it is also her
responsibility that she doesn’t abuse it because everyone knows that engaging
in sex leads to having children, and that engaging in sex outside the marriage
bed can lead to all sorts of serious problems, medical, psychological,
societal, economic, and so forth. The proper definition of words is not
being utilized in describing what is really happening when a woman’s right is
said to consist of being able to abuse herself if she chooses but only when such abuse comes
from being sexually active because other abuses such as attempted suicide or
drug abuse can incur criminal consequences. Because if a woman has a
right to do as she wishes with her body when being promiscuous, does she not
have a right to do as she wishes with her body when taking illegal drugs
too? Why prosecute against a woman who has abused drugs? It’s her
body, isn’t it, after all? So what if under the influence of drugs she
happens to drive into another car and kill the occupants? Is this
obviously wrong? What is that called, manslaughter? Why, because it’s not
really premeditated? Well, having sex and becoming pregnant and then
making an appointment to have an abortion is not manslaughter because there is
premeditation involved in knowing that sex procures children in the first place
and not avoiding circumstances that can lead to sex when children are not
intended. And making an appointment to have an abortion is certainly
premeditation, on the part of abortion patrons and providers. And legislating it is
premeditated on the part of the voters, lawmakers, and those contributing to
legalizing abortion in whatever way. All are responsible and guilty of
murder.
How is it that those a drug abuser
flattens out on the road while under the influence qualify as persons
victimized by reckless abuse of one’s body, and the children conceived in the
womb don’t?
Because the children conceived in the womb have lost the status of human being
under the law, especially if it’s the mother who wants them dead, and abuse of
the body has been redefined in the case of sex into a right, equal to eating
and other immediately essential life functions. Sex is not necessary to
life itself, only procreation. Engaging in sex is something we each can
control. And abortion is murder, convolutedly redefined as a right, and
therefore legal.
Senator Kennedy, you don’t need
anyone to tell you that your immortal soul is in danger if you facilitate by
your actions or support the legal murder of the unborn by calling it a woman’s
reproductive right. But what you do with your soul is something about
which you have God-given free will, although certainly you are in my prayers,
and I expect, still in your mother’s prayers as well. However, no one has
the right to choose whether someone else lives or dies, even if that person
happens to be in the body of a woman, and especially if that is the case.
It is the symptom of a just society to naturally respond to helplessness with
compassion, and to recognize all human beings as worthy of compassion and not
just those who won’t inconvenience according to passing fads deeming what is
just too much inconvenience or insupportable. It is also a philanthropic
duty, indeed, a privilege, to insure the life of such a one rather than
focus on what anyone can stand to lose on a material level by having had
compassion. Why, this is a self-evident truth. The laws that facilitate
the opposite of this are unjust and were procured corruptly.
The woman who would have the
compunction to destroy the fruit of her womb for any reason should immediately
be given – absolutely free if the woman does not have insurance – all the counseling
that she would require so as to be free of such unhealthy compunctions.
And she should receive even police protection if the reason for seeking an
abortion is duress. And this should apply to minors if parents are the
ones insisting on abortion, with the parents being given in addition to any
criminal consequences for attempted murder, all the counseling that would be
necessary to free them from such compunctions and to instill better parenting
skills. Of course there were back-alley abortions once upon a time, and
with outlawing abortion there may very well be again. But I’ve watched as
abortion patrons left clinics in ambulances, and there are so many accounts of
women scarred and killed by abortion. So take your pick, except with
legal abortion the numbers are much, much higher. It is far better, and
also appropriate, to have the expectation that the society should become
healthy minded and disciplined so as to avoid what is termed as an “unwanted
pregnancy.” Certainly, there is a violent expectation in the society for
political correctness and no matter what the new strain of perverted sexuality
is. The opposite of that can become the expectation, and without
violence. It is natural for women to appreciate their bodies so as to
have sex with their husbands and with the joyful expectation of becoming
pregnant -- and for those who are not married, to avoid sex and just do
something else instead, like baby sit for someone who is known to need a break
from the kids.
“Restoring the Rule of Law and
Repairing the Supreme Court Nomination Process”? What happened to the McCorvy amicus
brief?
Accountability prevents abortions,
Senator Kennedy.
Please contact me to learn how you
can help the pro-life movement, and thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Anna Maria Agolli
(All other contact information is filled out on the form on the website at http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm)
CLICK HERE TO GO TO PETITION TEXT