Author: Rafael Wolf | Libertarian Candidate, Michigan House of Representatives
Editor: Bonnie Warren
Is there any topic more controversial than abortion? It divides Americans like a hot knife though butter for a variety of reasons, all of which are inherently passionate. On June 24th, after writing most of this piece a week or so prior, Roe v Wade, a supreme court decision made in 1973 protecting the liberty and choice for a woman to have an abortion was overturned, thus making abortion rights the relative blessing, or curse, of the individual states of our union. There are essentially two sides to the debate, as you may know, but stick with me until the end…you may learn something new.
Aaaaaannnnnnd… In this corner, sporting an ankle-length, monochromatic skirt, accessorized with flats and knee-high socks, sometimes obeying the sabbath, sometimes not, sometimes eating ham on Easter (an unclean animal!), and sometimes not, defining what it means to be a hypocrite, her religion weighing in at anywhere from 65% – 75% of the nation, is your American church girl! She’s well-funded and well-represented in congress and the supreme court. She’s concerned how you live your life, defines herself as “religious” and “conservative” – she’s prooooooo-liiiiiiife! The crowd cheers! Aaaaaannnnnd… In this corner! A zealot, adorned in neon-colored hair and in direct opposition to anyone telling her what to do with her uterus – liberated, educated, self-actualized, refusing to shave her legs and pits, well-read, and free-spirited, is your progressive American woman – she’s prooooooo-choooooooice! The crowd cheers! “Let’s get readyyyyyyy…to ruuuuuuumble!”
“OK, you two – here are your instructions: Let’s have a good clean fight – no kidney punches, no rabbit punches, no love-handle grabbing, and no striking below the waist. When you hear the bell, that means the round is over. OK, you two, shake hands and come out fighting!”
These general terms are meant to illustrate a point. Of course you may be pro-life and not dress the way I described above, or even be religious. You may be pro-choice and not have neon colored hair, be educated, or live a sexually progressive lifestyle. All jesting aside, these opposing fighters frame a general perspective of who may be on each side of the debate. And what a debate it is! Discussing the topic of abortion can mean preparing for a fight between two loud, celebrity boxers duking it out in a public display of crazy.
So let me ask you something – why are you here? Why did you click on this link about abortion? Is it to find out if I belong to your tribe, to see if I agree with you on this single issue? Let’s be honest – you clicked on this link to find out if I am in your corner, if I am pro-life or pro-choice. I encourage you to clear your mind and soak in a unique perspective on this epic American battle in our current cultural civil war. It’s an incredibly important topic, one that can be way more nuanced than we often give it credit for…
Hugh Hefner, aka, “The Hef,” founder of Playboy Magazine Properties, one of many who sparked a sexual revolution in America, or perhaps simply took advantage of it, once said in an interview on the Dick Cavett show that, “In terms of my attitude on the whole, the feminist movement as it exists now, I think that women over generations and centuries have indeed been oppressed. I think there’s no question about it.” In an interview with a few feminists from “The Women’s Liberation Movement,” prior to Hef’s comments and as he was sitting on another couch, the women said that “Hugh Hefner is our enemy.” When Dick Cavett asked them what they thought men were doing wrong they said…
“Very in charge and ah, they oppress us as women, they won’t let us be and Hugh Hefner is my enemy.”Dick Cavett Show clip on YouTube | Date aired – 3/26/1970 – Hugh Hefner, Susan Brownmiller and Sally Kempton
Hef went on to say in which ways he felt women had clearly been oppressed, using history, mentioning that it had been a relatively short time in which women could vote, and a short time before that, own property. He commented that he thought there were many areas of society in which women did not have equal job opportunities, and that one of the main impetuses of the liberation movement was to create “better abortion laws.” He described how Playboy supported those efforts, and how Playboy had done as much, if not more, than any mass media outlet to help accomplish those goals. Many of you may not be aware that Hef would one day make his daughter, Christie Ann Hefner, CEO of Playboy – a position she held from 1988 to 2009. He seemed to have put his money where his mouth was, demonstrating the often unnoticed truth that sometimes your perceived enemy is really your ally. Who is the real enemy of the liberation movement anyway? Is it us and our poor understanding that hold the women’s movement back? Imagine if Susan Brownmiller and Sally Kempton put less energy into making Heff their enemy, and focused more on the real oppressors of women? Can we even identify these oppressors?
Did you know that there was a time in American history when the “abortion issue” was not really an issue at all? Abortion became an issue over time, intentionally, purposefully, and in a strategic way – politicians began systematically tapping into the raw human emotion that surrounds abortion, discovering this sea of tension could be harnessed and leveraged for political power. Abortion, defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy, has been around since the beginning of the first written languages, recorded on Egyptian papyrus, thousands of years ago. Can you believe that? Truly amazing! Some ancient techniques are still practiced today! Historically, abortions appear to have been a cross-cultural phenomenon, practiced in a cross-continental manner. Wherever you find humans, you find unwanted pregnancies and the cultural solutions that developed to remediate these problems documented in ancient texts and artwork. News flash! The abortion issue is not, once again, as history proves to us, something “new.”
Historically, there have been different attitudes surrounding abortion depending on the culture. Some have perceived, what we now call a fetus in the medical community, as “plant-like” and therefore morally acceptable to abort, while others did not believe in that premise. There was debate over what constitutes “life.” Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who lived around 300 BC, wrote that…
“[T]he line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive.”Wikipedia: Attitudes toward abortion
Is not that ancient assertion also a contemporary argument in the pro-life movement? Philosophers were discussing “lawful and unlawful” abortion in the context of perceived life over 2300 years ago! Fascinating isn’t it? A physician in the 1st and 2nd century by the name of Soranus acknowledged two opposing opinions held by colleagues in his day and age – those that would not perform an abortion because of their Hippocratic Oath, and those that would – composing a four volume set on the topic of gynecology. Talk about being literate as hell! Can you imagine writing a four volume set that has stood the test of time for over 2000 years? And you think your tweet went viral? Pah-lease!
Contemporary arguments about abortion are really nothing new! Around 27 BC, a woman in ancient Rome could be punished for terminating a pregnancy against the father’s wishes, not because the act resulted in the termination of a “life,” but because the act was considered by the courts to be a violation of the father’s rights! Crazy, eh?
Opposition within protestant circles (a large percentage of the pro-life movement), often debates what the “Almighty” opines regarding fetal status. Searching the Christian life manual, the bible, we find the following, interesting passage in the book of Exodus.
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.Exodus 21:22-24 | King James Version
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Here, as some evangelical scholars like Bruce Waltke would suggest, “God does not regard the fetus as a soul.” What? Oh my! Talk to the Wiki, people! Even within “Christian circles” there is debate! But you would never know it, listening to the pundits who access larger marketplaces of discussion on mass media. Here, as the biblical text suggests, the perpetrator of a terminated pregnancy, committing some violent act upon a woman that leads to a miscarriage, is simply punished by the husband’s judgement, and forced to pay a fine as a judge determines. If she dies, her eye is damaged, her teeth knocked out, hand or foot cut off, etc., equal justice for that living person can be inflicted. The “child” in her womb receives no such rights! Fascinating huh?! You may need to read all this again – it is almost unbelievable that this is a biblical perspective!
You can see the thread of debate woven throughout history among religious scholars, philosophers, politicians, judges, courts, society, etc., working through a personal understanding of how to think or feel about the abortion issue, attempting to tell YOU how to feel and think about it too! Some conclude that abortion is equivalent to murder, whereas others conclude that, well, if there is something wrong with the fetus, it is acceptable to terminate the pregnancy, and you know, if the situation involves rape or incest, well, that is a problem, and maybe it is again OK to terminate the pregnancy in the eyes of the Lord, or maybe it isn’t? It behooves us to think about this age-old debate in a larger historical context. Like much of our contemporary thoughts on various subjects, controversial issues like abortion have been debated for centuries, perhaps way longer than you may think. People have disagreed for thousands of years on the topic (literally!), and will continue to disagree, because, as Captain Obvious might say, pregnancy and what to do about it, is an intimate and personal decision, one that only one or two people should be concerned about. So who are we, as a body of individuals, to weigh in on the interests of others, an issue that matters specifically in a moment of time in a particular couple’s relationship, as if our opinion on other’s reproductive choices actually matters?
Telescoping out to reflect on larger social factors, another idea to consider is what American special “interests groups” are trying to do. The US, in my view, remains paternal in nature. The myth that America is the “land of the free and home of the brave” is exactly that – a myth. Women within our borders are not nearly as free as you may think. It seems obvious: pro-life interest groups are trying to control women and tell them what they can do with their bodies. Pro-life advocates argue that they are trying to protect a life that cannot protect itself, the life of an unborn child, a life in the womb, that at any stage of development, cannot choose its own ends, dependent on its mother, the host, for existence. These arguments ebb and flow throughout different cultures, at different times and in different historical contexts, transcending and interconnecting continents across the globe. There seems to be a feeling among women in America, as the feminists on the Dick Cavet show discussed back in the 1970’s, of being oppressed. The truth, and NOT the myth, is that America is oppressive, and always has been, to any number of people groups – male, female, immigrant, poor, native, mentally ill and more. The electorate consistently votes against its own interests of freedom and liberty each election cycle, voting for duopoly candidates who are oppressive in their own respective ways.
Examine the struggle clearly for what it is – women have always wanted to control when they get to experience, if at all, a pregnancy and what to do with that pregnancy. Our modern era is no different than the past (link). I like to think of abortion in terms of “situational ethics“, that is, putting oneself in someone else’s shoes, including the shoes of the unborn child. There are a number of costs associated with child rearing – monetary, emotional, physical, mental, etc. These costs may change, depending on historical contexts, such as getting pregnant in a depression, recession, or time of war. The purpose of bearing children, in fact, is also malleable, especially as economies continue to transform from agrarian (farming) to industrial (factory), where the “utility” of having larger families shifts. For example, with respect to contemporary Amish culture, children are extremely important for farming, because as fathers and mothers grow older, children can help with any number of tasks, also serving as a sort of a “retirement plan.” The Amish culture is an agrarian, “low-tech” society. In a “high-tech” industrial economy, where support systems like pensions, state retirement programs, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and IRA portfolios abound, the need for employing children as a vehicle for retirement diminishes, and the 401Kid, becomes less important. Children become something a family wants, not necessarily something a family needs – birthrates decline, and wealth increases. The vision of what life is meant to be, or what type of life can be lived, in an industrialized world also shifts. Born is the new “American dream,” one of upward mobility, progress, and “hard work pays off” ideals. The result? A house in the suburbs, a white picket fence, 2.5 kids, and a dog! The inconvenience, in a modern society, of having children at all, especially for single parents and those in difficult circumstances, becomes magnified, and a new, formalized industry, such as the one that arose in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, can be seen servicing the demand for abortions with formalized medicines, like pills.
Nothing like capitalism to capitalize on the new found needs of others! Pay attention here, there was market demand. Both men and women advocated for abortion, presumably having their own interests for doing so, and presumably clashing in their reasons, at times running into friction with other sectors of society that opposed those reasons. Americans began choosing for themselves how to run their lives. In the market place, individuals will inevitably seek out a service or product, even in times of prohibition, even if dangerous to one’s health or life, if this means the ability is to determine one’s own path in life is preserved. This is the heart of “the American spirit!” – individual liberty, freedom, and choice – having options and “self-determination“!
When women entered the workforce, they began acquiring more rights, such as voting and owning property. Recall Hef on the Dick Cavett Show, who reminded the feminists on the show that he was not their enemy, but their ally – one who opposed the oppression of women, including sexual oppression? Although women today are no longer “barefoot and pregnant” so to speak, in the kitchen, under the thumb of a patriarch, the philosophy of oppression is still part of our overall culture, and a number of sub-cultures within America. Throughout the history of women’s liberation, as the market demand for reproductive choices grew, women became increasingly empowered to decide if and when they became pregnant by using birth control measures, whether through pills or more involved medical measures that others desired to ban.
Shifting gears to how information flows, consider how we may define “information technology” (IT). IT refers not only to computers, or the internet, with IT dopes running the show behind mystical, Oz-like curtains and clouds, but can also encompass a host of more basic vehicles of communication – such as the written language, a typewriter, a telegraph, a television, a radio, etc. – which operate at various rates of speed. Radio and television became extremely important transmitters of ideas, because, unlike the newspaper, they could convey significant quantities of information at a moment’s notice into millions of homes! Within this culture of booming IT and exploding mediums of communication, the 1960’s witnessed the pro-choice movement expand at rapid rates. Ingenuity made available “floating abortion clinics” operated by the “Jane Coalition.” These clinics moved around the city so as to avoid detection, providing vulnerable women with a more clandestine option. In many cases, however, women risked death to have an abortion, with some underground clinics declaring a dismal death rate of nearly 30% of their users. That is a very high number! In 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortion, and as technology progressed, medicine progressed, acceptable social norms progressed, and options for birth control expanded. The depo shot, for example, had the advantage of reducing the need for pills, and consequently, had a lower rate of unplanned pregnancies. Together, increased education, access to contraception, and pharmaceutical breakthroughs contributed to lower birth rates in the US, among other likely factors.
What does all this technology, science, education, advancement of social values, and evolution of communication teach us about ourselves as time marches on? It informs us that our collective desire for something basic, a fundamental, guiding principal of the human spirit, one that isn’t just American, but one that women and men have shared for thousands of years, stretching across cultures and seas – comprised of liberty, freedom, choice, and options – is what the fight over abortion is really all about.
A Closer Look
What does modern demographic data show us regarding the stratification of abortions in contemporary society by age? Thinking about the data on a deeper level, should the government even have any paternalistic rights over grown-ass women who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions with the help of a medical professional? On the other end of the spectrum, should the government even be involved in health decisions regarding a minor who has an acceptable legal guardian? For any reason at all, should the government be involved in the restriction of liberty, freedom, choice, and options concerning this topic?
In my view, the data is informative only. Why? Because my overall opinion about abortion is that I shouldn’t really have an opinion. Unfortunately, as a politician, I kind of have to have one so that my voters know where I stand. Rather than explicitly being in anyone’s corner, I am more the referee. The “abortion issue” is sometimes the sole reason voters will or will not vote for a specific candidate. Consequently, I choose to err on the side of individual rights, since that is what I would personally prefer if I were put into this situation. I believe in liberty, personal freedom, and personal choice. Some might argue against this stance on behalf of the baby’s individual rights. While I agree that abortion is an abhorrent practice, the termination of a young and innocent life, where we may disagree is in how we think about whether or not the state has the right to intervene in the process of self-determination of a free American citizen, or anyone else for that matter. What a grown, sane, and rational adult can or cannot do with her or his body is the matter in question. In the United States, what rights does an unborn child have? Does an unborn child have any rights at all according to our constitution, bill of rights and law? This question weighs heavily on my mind as a politician, and I have thought about it a lot in recent days. As an elected official, one cannot simply pick and choose which parts of the constitution, the bill of rights, or laws one favors and disregard the others. When elected, one must swear to uphold these founding documents. As such, we must examine the 14th amendment as it has something to say about the rights of born, and consequently not-born, children:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”The 14th Amendment
Legally, according to the 14th amendment, an unborn child within the womb has no legal rights as a US citizen, and no legal rights in its home state. Therefore, simply, and at face value, the state, whether an actual state or under the jurisdiction of the federal government, has absolutely no right to determine what a person can or cannot do with a pregnancy, regardless of belief if the fetus or baby is considered a separate “life.” Unborn children within the United States have no legal protections as citizens on US soil, because, as one can clearly read above, an unborn child does not attain the rights of a US citizen until it is born. Under the first amendment, however, which protects the freedom of speech, you can talk about it, protest it, burn copies of it all you like, but it doesn’t make a difference! The cold, hard truth of the matter, is that the abortion issue, according to the 14th amendment, really isn’t an issue at all.
As cut and dry as the 14th amendment appears to be, it seems that the Supreme Court and state legislatures disagree on its interpretation. The courts, politicized by politicians and complicit voters who continue voting for duopoly candidates, do not accurately reflect public opinion. As a whole, leadership that fails to view abortion as a matter of liberty, personal freedom, and individual choice, actively creates a culture war of morality and paternalism. The goal? Controlling the lives of others, and making choices for them, through the power of force wielded by the state legislature. We could talk church vs secular culture at this juncture, however, this may be an over-simplification, as there are many pro-life advocates that are not religious, and many religious persons who support the pro-choice movement. Through sensationalism, politicians can easily use an individual’s stance on abortion as a way to sling mud at an opposing candidate, agitate a voter base, and motivate passionate people to show up at the polls to vote for them, e.g., “Vote for me because (insert ‘baby killer’ or ‘oppressive rights stripper’ here) doesn’t represent YOUR interests.” If we did want to go the route of religious debate, I might pose the question of why do Bible-following “Christians,” who appear to be the majority of pro-life advocates, fail, on a regular basis to clean their own houses as directed in the scriptures? 1 Thessalonians 4 (1T4) directs Christ-followers to mind their own business, and to live quietly while waiting patiently for the coming of the Lord. It surprises me that 1T4 doesn’t receive as much air time as 1 Jeremiah 5, for example. Aren’t Christians supposed to read and interpret the Bible as a whole? Why do certain segments of American culture want to cast their moral philosophies and religious cultures onto other people? Why not allow for the whole of America to enjoy the gifts of self-determination, liberty, and freedom which represent true separation of church and state and a clean 14th amendment?
I think that on a macro scale, abortion as a controversial issue will never disappear quietly into the background. It has been with us for 2300 years. Like guns, abortion is as American as apple pie, although, as an interesting aside, apple pie does not happen to be American at all! If you believe in freedom and liberty, if you believe that you should be given options and the right to live your life as you determine, then it follows logically that you should also be neutral on this issue, or at the least, pro-choice. I simply do not have a dog in this fight, a fight that is in all actuality manufactured propaganda to divert attention away from the 14th amendment and to impassion a voter base for money and votes. If I did have a dog in the fight, I hope it would be a dog that would defend the freedoms of my fellow Americans. It bothers me that the state of Michigan now has more local problems to solve, when it should be more instrumental in solving more difficult and potentially devastating problems like those of endless imperial wars, big business takeovers, police states that run prison industrial complexes, the problem of the “surveillance state” of our union, poor education, poor healthcare, poor economy, poor housing, high tax rates, government waste, high energy costs, inequality, high inflation, you name it! Do you seriously want the government telling you what you can or cannot do with your life any more than it already does? How in the world can pro-life advocates, if they are anti-vax or pro-choice on getting a COVID vaccine, reconcile such disparate ways of thinking when it comes to what the government can and cannot decide with respect to their bodies? Why is it that the anti-vax crowd, and I do not mean that as a pejorative or negative term, sings the same song as pro-choice abortion advocates when it comes to a vaccine injection of an mRNA vaccine, or government mandates to get one? “My body, my choice.” Is it primarily because that on certain issues like protecting a baby in a womb, they think they have the right to protect that baby under the authority of an almighty God, or a higher level of moral judgement, and that it is somehow OKAY to do so with government force? Although this is not the only argument made by pro-life advocates, it remains a major one. I disagree with pro-life advocates because of the slippery slope they place all of America on when they violate fundamental governmental principles, such as the separation of church and state. This principle protects religious minorities from persecution of their religious beliefs. What is good for the goose, should be good for the Michigander! Separation of church and state is paramount in protecting religious minorities from rapid shifts in popular culture. It is not implausible to project that one day Islam, as a religion, for example, could dominate the culture of America. Would it be okay with you, if you did not subscribe to the tenets of Muhammad, that you may be prohibited from practicing something within the context of your own religious freedom as a cultural minority, if that were the case?
The Data, The Corpus
Here’s a kicker – according to the data, most abortions completed annually in the United States are for adults (link). Of the roughly 600,000 abortions performed yearly, only 10,711 abortions are completed for minors under the age of 18. This represents 1.67% of annual abortions. Even so, what if one of those 10,711 children was YOUR child? Would you really want the government telling you how to raise your child? And what if your child had special needs and was raped by her teacher and became pregnant? Most social conservatives would, or should, say no – the government has no right to interfere – and these RIGHTERS should absolutely refrain from picking and choosing what infringement on their rights they prefer from the government by avoiding treading on the protective principle of the separation of church and state.
In summary, the body, or corpus of the abortion debate can be broken down into 4 systems:
- The Head: Pro-life advocates attempting to judge every situation according to a uniform set of rules, telling other adults how they can live their lives.
- The Heart: Pro-life advocates trying to protect the unborn, which they neither have the biblical authority nor the constitutional authority to do so from both protestant Christian and constitutional/bill of rights perspectives.
- The GI Tract: Politicians leveraging the abortion debate as an opportunity to solidify votes for their party, consolidating political power; instead of promoting calmer and more rational understandings of constitutional issues, they prefer to stoke the flames of moral civil wars.
- The Feet: Neutral and pro-choice advocates trying to preserve individual, constitutional rights, and promote the separation of church and state, leading America into a more stable and rational future.
Putting the values of freedom and liberty into practice means avoiding giving too much power to a small number of lawmakers that centrally control society through governmental power. Instead, it involves relinquishing control of personal issues to individuals who can make rational decisions for themselves, minor children, and dependents. To me, to have an abortion or not have an abortion is a highly personal choice – a decision that is unimaginably difficult and painful to experience on multiple levels. I cannot fathom what it must be like to walk in someone else’s shoes as it pertains to this matter, but if I was able to, I think I would like to have options, I would like to have choices, and I would like the freedom and liberty of self-determination. As unfortunate as it is, the would-be child in the womb has no choice, no right to life. In America, the unborn have no rights under law, and the state has no authority to dictate that they do. Bans on abortion at any level, state or federal, are unconstitutional.
This is why, if I had to choose between pro-life and pro-choice labels (and neutral wasn’t an option), I would declare that I am pro-choice on the abortion issue. An unborn baby, unfortunately, simply has no constitutional rights. I tend to err on the side of choice when it comes to many different issues, not just abortion. I think we can be rational and reasonable about social debates by placing them within the context of people’s personal philosophies, and weighing them against the backdrop of history, the constitution, and the bill of rights. We all need protection from government overreach, whether it is from a vaccine mandate, bans on abortion, inflation that silently steals purchasing power from every day Americans, or many other destructive laws and “policies.” I am not running for office to centrally control much of anything, but rather to redistribute control to the people, the citizens who are capable of setting their own courses in life. Some of the issues I have discussed, like education and policing, need to be solved by rebuilding these institutions in new and better ways. Voting for duopoly candidates propagates and perpetuates the stripping of rights of US citizens in various, and often egregious, ways. If you are reading this you may be asking yourself, how is it possible for a team blue Democrat to strip the rights of citizens away in egregious ways? That cannot possibly be true! You don’t have to look far from home to discover the bi-partisan, no-fault auto insurance law signed by our Democratic Governor, that stripped quality healthcare away from those receiving benefits from the catastrophic fund, all under the guise of “lowering rates for all Michiganders. A contract for life long insurance benefits was broken by the state. Fact check! The State of Michigan still has the highest automotive insurance rates of all 50 states. The new no-fault insurance did nothing but give a $400 dollar rebate per vehicle to citizens in Michigan (blood money!) and allow insurance companies to downgrade healthcare to a vulnerable population. And what about online censorship at the behest of left-leaning politicians? In my view, this practice violates freedom of speech and expression with the help of “big tech,” and eliminates the voices of third parties overall. I could go on. There is a mono-party in America made up of bi-partisan hacks that form a duopoly ruling class that serves its own interests and the interests of a donor class who are not interested in giving up power, but rather in taking and maintaining it. Their interests, in fact, go beyond our borders, where they are responsible for much oppression on the world stage.
America needs now, more than ever, to move beyond its current two-party system, and support third, forth, and possibly even fifth parties. Instead of giving power to the establishment, consider giving it to someone else who can actually represent your best interests by helping to overcome an oppressive duopoly ruling class. The more powerful the duopoly is, the less powerful you will be in your own personal liberties. You might say, well, if I vote for you or another third party, you will get a big head, get greedy, and oppress us the same as everyone else. This simply isn’t true. Why? Because to pass a law, pass a budget, to get anything done, you need, for example in the Senate, a majority of votes. Think for a moment, if there were a minority party in office that was not part of the duopoly establishment – say 49 Democrats, 50 Republicans, 1 Libertarian or Green party member in the US Senate – without the third party vote, it would not be possible to pass legislation. The establishment would need to secure one or two votes from outside their respective parties. Voting in even a small number of third party candidates would essentially, under certain conditions, strip power away from the establishment in new and hitherto unseen ways, allowing for meaningful systemic change.
This is the goal. This is why I am running for office – to help the people of our district check the establishment and reclaim personal power, creating meaningful change in positive directions for liberty, freedom, and choice. Whatever corner you subscribe to when it comes to abortion, I hope you will consider helping me turn around the Titanic of political quagmire that has waylaid our country for too long, a system that has actively oppressed candidates who belong to any party other than team blue or team red, those candidates that have the ability to help you realize the original promise of our nation. Consider voting for team yellow or team green, anyone who has your back in this important fight for liberty in the truest sense of the word. Now that’s a fight worth fighting…