A Comment JAMES JACKSON KILPATRICK I f Mr . Re e s h a s not delivered himself of an essay on abortion, I will never read an essay on abortion. And if his tone is not shrill, I have been struck tone-deaf. He has indeed voiced a cry of unbearable pain; he recoils from abortion as the central horror of our times; he feels guilty for not spending every lunch hour on the sidewalk, passing out leaflets. The gentleman is a one-issue man. His voice is the voice of zealotry, and it turns me off.
Let me respond by talking a little history, a little law, a little politics. These are fields that relate directly to the question under discussion, which has to do with how officeholders vote on particular legislative propositions. Arguments of theology, morals, and medicine are not before the house. We are debating such issues as a constitutional amendment on abortion and the public funding of abortions for the indigent. Mr. Rees’s position, as I understand it, is that every member of Congress who opposes the amendment or supports the funding should be drummed out of office for this reason alone as soon as an opportunity presents itself at the polls.




Comments