valencia Writes

Open letter to Senator John Kennedy, from Louisiana.

Dear Senator John Kennedy,

                I am writing to you in response to your questions in front of the April 26^th Senate Hearings on Abortion. You asked the doctors, professors and other experts present whether they would support a bill that called for unfettered access to abortion up until birth.

I noticed that you had difficulty with the answers they provided because you wanted a “Yes” or “No” response, and some experts wanted to explain their position with more detail than what a “Yes” or “No” response could provide.

                Professor Michele Goodwin was probably unable to give you a one-word answer because professors believe in explaining their positions in detail. No professor asks you to write a “one word” term paper. They expect you to think critically, assert your position, then back up that position with detail. They expect you to do research. How can you complete the assignment correctly without it? So, when Professor Goodwin doesn’t answer you with a “Yes” or “No,” it’s not an inditement of her character. It doesn’t compromise her professional credibility; in fact, it solidifies that credibility because she needs to consider every question asked and respond with a comprehensive answer based on that critical thinking.

That’s why she’s a professor. Answering based on her personal opinion would be inappropriate because one’s personal opinion should not influence the performance of one’s professional career. Stating a personal opinion regarding abortion would compromise her professional objectivity and credibility.

She’s not being evasive. She’s being professional. This is not a “gotcha” moment.

                Dr. Nisha Verma, OBGYN, was unable to give you an answer because doctors base their treatment protocol on their assessment of each individual patient. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to do otherwise. First, each patient has their own medical history, genetic predispositions, social, and other factors that determine what treatment would be best for that individual. For example, not everyone diagnosed with diabetes takes the same medication because there are differences in age, height, weight, potential allergies to medications, etc. All these issues factor into what services doctors provide to their patients. Even in a hypothetical scenario, doctors cannot give a Yes/No response to a surgical procedure because they need to know the specifics of a case in order to determine the best, safest, and healthiest course of action for the patient in question.

Second, every doctor legally operating in the United States needs to operate within that jurisdiction’s laws, hence they lose their license and credibility. Asking a doctor to decide a medical course of action based on a hypothetical question without the context of the laws the doctor must abide by, is also superfluous at best. You’re not seeking an actual answer. You’re seeking a soundbite for your reelection campaign. You want to pin someone down to a quick response that you can use to further your specific political agenda.

Finally, you seemed to be asking this medical provider a moral question instead of a medical question. As you know, doctors are required to treat patients regardless of that patient’s political or religious beliefs. And, in turn, doctors are supposed to provide care regardless of that doctor’s own personal, political, moral, or religious beliefs. Personal opinions should not factor into how they provide medical treatment to their patients. That is, at the very least unethical, and at most, dangerous.

Dr. Verma’s inability to give you a Yes or No answer is based on the logic and facts listed above. It is not an indication of her motivations. It is simply reflective of her profession and how it should ideally and legally operate.

Senator Kennedy, we do not live in a world where complex issues have simple, one-word answers. There are usually a variety of factors that need to be considered when addressing pretty much anything in today’s public discourse; especially topics as complicated and politically charged as abortion.

                Where legislation will go in the future, I don’t know.

I do know this:

1. It’s illegal in every state to purposely end the life of any person from birth through the natural or medical end of that person’s existence.
2. According to an article published by U.S. News and World Report, 88 percent of states in this country have some level of restriction on abortion – from total bans of this medical procedure, to restrictions or bans after a specific number of weeks gestation.
3. In your home state of Louisiana, abortion is banned except in cases of medical emergency or if the pregnancy is “medically futile.”

Since the laws in your state seem to reflect your opinions regarding the legality of abortion, I’m wondering as to why you feel it necessary to impose additional restrictions on states that you were not elected to represent.

                If you are so concerned with your colleagues from across the aisle and the type of legislation they would put forth, then I would suggest putting abortion on the national ballot, where voters can decide where to draw the line.

I don’t think you are brave enough to do that because you know that the general public will vote to maintain some level of abortion access on a national level. Do you know how I know this is true? Because there are already laws governing abortion in EVERY single state. Most of those predate the overturning of Roe v Wade.

                So… If you personally oppose abortion, don’t have one.

Wait…you can’t have one. No pregnancy will affect your health. No pregnancy will end your life. Access to abortion does not affect ANY of your rights as a man. It doesn’t affect any of your choices, as a man. However, males account for 50 percent of the two components that produce a pregnancy – planned or unplanned. That’s right: sperm.

So, Senator Kennedy, can you please tell me why only women and pregnant people, have their reproductive choices restricted? Fertile Women can produce one child per calendar year. Women release no more than one egg per month.

Can you tell me how many pregnancies men can potentially create?

According to Healthline.com, “A normal sperm count ranges from 15 million sperm to more than 200 million sperm per milliliter (mL) of semen. Anything less than 15 million sperm per milliliter, or 39 million sperm per ejaculate, is considered low. A low sperm count is often referred to as oligospermia. A high, or above average, sperm count is over 200 million sperm per millimeter.”

That’s hundreds of millions of sperm, an essential component of life.

If the goal of your party is to prevent as many abortions as possible, then shouldn’t the bulk of the legal responsibility be on males, who have a greater potentiality to create multiple pregnancies at the same time? Why are males not legally required to have vasectomies or utilize condoms should they not want an unplanned pregnancy to occur?

If the ingredients of life are so important, then why not pass laws that restrict men from casually ejaculating millions of potential lives without the implicit intention to create a pregnancy with their wife (and only their wife)?

The truth is this is about restricting women and their bodily autonomy, because laws restricting men’s reproductive activities would accomplish the same goal you hope to achieve: fewer abortions.

The truth is that you don’t want women to have the option to prevent pregnancy or terminate pregnancy at any point for any reason, even if it is to save their lives.

Your party asserts that this is about protecting children but…

If this was about protecting children, why are you not passing gun legislation that would prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who shoot up schools with automatic or semi-automatic weapons?

If this was about protecting children, why are you against passing universal background checks? Do you want people with a criminal history of violence to legally and easily obtain firearms?

If this was about protecting children, why would you be against providing funding for school breakfasts, lunches, food stamps, and Medicaid?

If this was about protecting children, why do they lose your protection the moment they exit the womb?

In the April 26^th hearing, I’m guessing you were asking the opinions of those experts because you are a believer in allowing your personal values, including your religious views, to dictate how you legislate, regardless of whether that accurately represents the sentiments of your constituents.

However, the Establishment Clause of the 1^st Amendment, you know – the one that comes before the 2^nd Amendment – establishes the separation between Church and State. Our founders understood that religion heavily influences people’s opinions. There are a host of religions practiced in this country. Not every religion is the same, therefore laws purely based on religious doctrines cannot be objective, and it therefore has no place in legislation.

The religious doctrines of some cannot and should not be imposed on all.

                My sources are listed below:

1. Source: State Abortion Laws in the Wake of Roe v. Wade (usnews.com) – US News and World Report, April 26, 2023, By Julia Haines, Kaia Hubbard, and Christopher Wolf
2. Source: Sparks Fly When John Kennedy Asks Dem Witnesses If They Support Abortion Up To Moment Of Birth – Forbes Breaking News, April 26, 2023, Forbes Breaking News – YouTube Channel
3. Source: Louisiana State Legislature, Louisiana Laws – Louisiana State Legislature, RS 40:1061.1.3.
4. Source: Healthline.com, link – Normal Sperm Count: Understanding Your Semen Analysis (healthline.com).
5. Source: The Establishment Clause of the 1^st Amendment – link: First Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.

Submitted Respectfully,

Valencia Turner

Wife, Mother, Citizen, Voter

Registered Independent