My views on Abortion/Pro Choice - Continued

Friday, July 13, 2018

Friday, July 13, 2018

July 13th, 2018


From: Francis William Bessler

           4500 Meadowlark Lane

           Laramie, Wyoming





U. S. Senator Mike Enzi

379A Senate Russell Office Building

Washington, DC.  20510



U.S. Senator John Barrasso

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC. 20510



U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney

416 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC  20515



Hello, Senator Enzi, Senator Barrasso, and RepresentativeCheney,


Below, I am sharing my recent letter to the editor Ijust submitted to our local paper - The Laramie Boomerang.  I hope that it defines somewhat my view onthe issue of abortion.  I am verystrongly anti-abortion due to believing that I should assume that life beginswith conception, but I am just as strong in my belief that I should not imposethat belief on anyone else.  I wouldencourage all of you to take the issue of freedom to choose as a primaryconsideration in the upcoming interrogations of the current nominee for theSupreme Court, Bret Kavanaugh. 


I believe Freedom to Choose should be the mostimportant issue facing Mr. Kavanaugh.  Ishe likely to choose to deny personal freedom as a Supreme Court Justice due topersonal religious beliefs - or to claim that if the CONSTITUTION does notallow for it, it must be illegal? Whether you are on a committee to interrogate Mr. Kavanagh or not,please listen to him to decipher what he really believes by virtue of pastactions and statements - and not just what he claims to believe?  Listen to him and then make your opinionsabout what you have heard known to others - Congressional and otherwise.  We need to know what you think.  This issue should not be a matter of secrecyamong a few, but rather a general discussion.     


I do believe a basic argument against our countrydeciding to allow personal choice to decide abortion issues is that theCONSTITUTION does not address it specifically and therefore Americans ingeneral should deny it because in a way, "it has been written" thatthe "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" applies toall Americans, born and unborn.  If ourforefathers had to deal with abortion as an issue, it is my belief they wouldhave likely treated it like a "free choice" issue - likereligion.  For current Americans to actlike the CONSTITUTION should answer all issues - even those not faced by ourforefathers - is not only illogical, but also very demeaning of the PRO CHOICEassembly in our great nation.


On another issue, Senator Barrasso, I very muchappreciate your response to my letter asking you and Senator Enzi andRepresentative Cheney to try and clarify the issue of Presidential Pardons byvirtue of some legislative act - mostly to let President Trump know he cannotrely on being able to pardon one convicted during his term - simply becausethat was not the intent of allowing for a Presidential Pardon in the CONSTITUTION.  You replied that it is  a power granted in the CONSTITUTION -and,  in essence, you cannot change that;but I would like to remind you and the others that it may not be as simple asthat.


My reading of the CONSTITUTION on the issue -Article II, Section 2 - is that the President "shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offensesagainst the United States, except in cases of Impeachment."


I do believe that needs clarified - and I thinkCongress should try to do that - especially to make it clear what it meansrelated to any power President Trump may think he has.  What does "Offensesagainst the United States" mean? I think it means serious crimes against our country as a country, liketreason for instance - not for some personal offense.  Second, what does it mean that a President cangrant a pardon, except in cases ofImpeachment?  Is that to say that ifa president is impeached, he cannot pardon someone; or does that mean that if apresident is tried for impeachment, he cannot pardon someone - related to hisoffense - or supposed offense?  Or doesit mean that a president cannot pardon some legal official who has beenimpeached?  Talk about confusion.  This statute - if you want to call it that -is full of confusion - and, in my opinion, Congress should try to address theissue by agreeing to some set of rules related to Presidential Pardons. 


Why not clarify by legislative measure what ArticleII, Section 2 actually means?  If needbe, refer the issue to Constitutional Scholars of various ilk.  More than likely, each of them will have somevery profound ideas about that issue - as well as other Constitutional issues -like what the 2nd Amendment really says. 


Personally, I have never understood how it can betaken that the 2nd Amendment grants all Americans the right to ownand bear arms.  The way I read it, theright to bear arms was conditioned upon the need for a "well regulated militia." How in the world does that translate to each of us having a right tobear arms when almost none of us bear arms for the sake of a "well regulated militia"?  I am not arguing that we may not have a"right to bear arms," but I am arguing the 2nd Amendmentdoes not provide that right.  We need tobe correct in our thinking.  If we thinkwe have a "right to bear arms," let it be founded on something otherthan the 2nd Amendment, don't you agree?


I will leave it at that - with my letter to theeditor relating to the issues of PRO CHOICE and ABORTION to follow.  Thanks so much for your attention.  I would like to comment about other issuestoo - like our separation of children and adults at the border, but I willleave that for another time. 


Enough for now. Reply as you will.




Francis William Bessler





Personally, I am anti-war andanti-abortion, but I am not for deciding those issues for others.  In1966, during the Vietnam War, I tried to serve in the U.S. NAVY, then in theU.S. AIR FORCE, then in the U.S. ARMY, not as a soldier, but as a hospitalcorpsman.  I strongly disagreed with our participation in that war, but Ithought that as an American, I should serve in some way.  I told myself -you don't have to agree with another's right to be a soldier to serve assomeone who is willing to nurse a wounded soldier.  My application wasdenied, by all three branches of our military, one after another. Why?  Because I had a "bad ear." 


But my point is that my mosttreasured right as an American is to have the right to CHOOSE.  I do notbelieve in war, but I do believe in healing someone with an injury.  So,what difference does it make that I do not believe in war?  Likewise, I donot believe in abortion; but I do not think I have the right to impose mychoice on another who believes in abortion anymore than I have the right tostop a person from being a soldier.  The issue is CHOICE, not someparticular activity.


How many who are pro-war, however,  are also anti-abortion?  You who arepro-war but anti-abortion ought to think about it.  Why are you so againstanother's right to CHOOSE that in which you do not believe, but are so willingto be inconsistent in your belief?  Why are you so against a pregnantperson's right to try and "prevent" an unwanted  life, but arefor a soldier's right to take another's life in war - or any other action thatmight take a life? 


Did our CONSTITUTION address anissue like abortion? No, but that was probably because it was not an issue whenit was written; but CHOICE - and the right to choose was an issue - and it isimplied by that feature that if abortion had been an issue, it would have beentreated as a CHOICE - much like our right to "choose" areligion.  Thanks for listening - to one who treasures the right to"choose."