[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H170-H171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AUTONOMY VERSUS RELATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to a talk show one day 
when a 13-year-old girl called in. She was confused. At that tender 
age, to put it mildly, she talked about how she had been walked all 
over by her peers and subjected to the exploitation of an older man. 
She had no sufficient sense of self-possession to know that she had 
been used. She had no community support, no adult around her to protect 
her.
  The radio commentator was aghast. But, sadly, Mr. Speaker, this was 
another troubling example of a culture of exploitation that is raging 
all around us today.
  However, Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of light on the horizon. In a 
few weeks, tens of thousands of young people from around the country 
will assemble around this Capitol to deliver a simple message.
  These young people are saying this: They will no longer tolerate the 
indifference. They will no longer tolerate a culture of exploitation. 
They will no longer tolerate the darkness of the abortion industry.
  They are members of the generation that have witnessed firsthand the 
devastating consequences when wrong ideas take hold in a society, when 
the smartest people in the land--the Supreme Court Justices--are 
misguided and do not value all lives, when certain industries profit 
from pain.
  These young people are saying that women deserve better than 
abortion. They are saying that children should be welcome, no matter 
how hard the circumstances. They are saying that no one should be 
abandoned. There should be no choice between a child and that child's 
mother.
  Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that many people are reluctant to 
enter into arguments about abortion. It is difficult. It is painful. So 
many people have experienced this individually or with family members. 
But we have to be honest.
  Mr. Speaker, if you look behind me at the dais here, you can see the 
words ``peace,'' ``liberty,'' and ``justice.'' We have these words all 
around our Nation's capital, our Nation's monuments.
  But, in truth, we cannot find peace in a society that does not 
protect its most innocent lives. We cannot find liberty when we are 
indifferent to one another and simply turn away when a woman

[[Page H171]]

faces difficulty. We cannot claim justice for all when we throw away 
the innocent unborn life.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to delve for a moment into the deeper reasons for 
these divisions over abortion and the deeper reasons why we have such a 
caustic debate.
  For those of us who are pro-life, it can be hard, frankly, to 
understand why everyone just doesn't see our perspective. But I believe 
that much of the ugliness surrounding the abortion debate hinges upon 
the competing values of personal autonomy versus relational 
responsibility, once again, personal autonomy versus relational 
responsibility.
  Of course, working hard, making something of yourself, refusing to 
let difficult circumstances overcome you, are all hallmarks of a well-
ordered life essential to an individual's progress as a person.
  But, Mr. Speaker, rugged individualism can lead to rugged 
isolationism, crushing the vitality of the human heart and leading to 
loneliness, hopelessness, and ultimately despair.
  And could it be, Mr. Speaker, that the confusion surrounding abortion 
is the loss of an understanding of the dignity of each person as they 
are set in the environment of a community?
  On this deeply painful topic of abortion, the primary community in 
question is, first and foremost, the unique bond between a mother and 
her child, followed by the bond of the extended family and extended 
community.
  All politics--all life--Mr. Speaker, is ultimately founded on 
relationships. Happiness depends upon social life, on interdependency. 
A healthy society depends upon stable and healthy relationships for 
promoting sustainable values and our greater ideals.
  But because of cultural confusion, we establish a false choice. Is it 
a woman's right to choose or is it a child's right to life? This should 
not be a consideration in the broader community that is committed to 
bonds of solidarity.
  Sadly, I believe, we have lost sight of the degree to which the logic 
of radical autonomy, severed from foundational principles that order 
human relations, namely, in charity, have created the circumstances in 
which we now find ourselves.
  Individuals who are alone so often become disassociated from 
mutuality and community. Decades upon decades of this cultural 
conditioning leaves us with an aggregate understanding that our 
strength is only found in ourselves. No wonder a young woman, scared, 
alone, or abandoned feels such pressure to abort.
  Mr. Speaker, during last year's historic papal visit to the United 
States, Pope Francis highlighted the need for what I call social 
conservation.

                              {time}  2000

  At its root, social conservation is the answer to the widespread 
longing in all of our hearts, that longing for a culture of meaning, of 
purposefulness.
  Pope Francis promoted universal human values, the importance of 
society, the primacy of the family, the dignity of work, the 
responsibility of people to properly steward the natural environment, 
and the sanctity of all life, especially the poor, the elderly, those 
who are marginalized, and the unborn.
  This holistic approach of Pope Francis does not fit our political 
class distinctions, which rage all around us in this body. So this is 
not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is about the protection of 
persons and how we build a truly healthy society.
  Children in the womb are vulnerable, precious members of their 
families. We must defend them, not in isolation, but as a part of the 
social fabric upon which our shared future as a people depends.
  Now, some abortion advocates charge that defenders of the unborn are 
pro-life only until birth of the child; that the pro-life position is a 
part of a grotesque fiction called the war on women. That is a very 
painful accusation.
  In the end, I wish we could rise above this, because I believe 
everyone should agree that the choice between radical autonomy as a 
justification for abortion, versus relational responsibility, is a 
false choice. To be pro-life is to be genuinely pro-child, pro-woman, 
and pro-family.
  No matter how hard the circumstances, we should all be loving enough, 
caring enough, and we certainly have resources enough to protect both 
the mother and her child.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to look for ways to reframe this 
entire debate, to look for some light. Maybe there will continue to be 
deep philosophical differences over the question, but maybe there is 
some common ground.
  A spectrum of policy proposals could more effectively build wider 
coalitions, I believe, in the pro-life debate, advancing cultural 
conversion instead of cultural war. Initiatives could include an 
assault on the scourge of coercion, which forces many women, including 
young girls, to have an abortion at the hands of an uncaring boyfriend 
or unscrupulous doctor.
  Can't we find it in ourselves to attack this injustice? I would like 
to believe we can.
  What about incentives for businesses to provide better pregnancy and 
new parenthood assistance, including maternity and paternity leave? 
Some of my colleagues speaking before me mentioned some of these 
proposals. No woman should be forced to choose between a paycheck and 
her child.
  Other ideas could be adoption, enhanced adoption facilities, 
countermeasures against workplace pregnancy discrimination, classifying 
pregnancy as a qualifying event for health insurance, initiatives for 
responsible fatherhood.
  That is not my idea, that is President Obama's idea. In fact, I 
commended him for that because he raised it in the State of the Union, 
as I recall, about 2 years ago.
  Finally, I think we should channel money from the abortion facilities 
which are receiving America's taxpayer dollars, which most Americans 
disagree with, by the way, toward nurturing pregnancy health centers, 
and there are many beautiful examples of this all around the country.
  By pursuing these policy proposals, maybe we shift the cultural 
understanding that it is not a choice between radical autonomy--I can 
only find strength in myself, me, as an individual, I am alone, 
abandoned, no matter how much I need others--and a relational 
responsibility that we all have for one another.
  Let's elevate this idea of that relational responsibility of 
interdependency within community because we are living in a shattered 
society.
  Nothing else is working, Mr. Speaker. We are in an age of anxiety and 
a time of growing threat to the family, the very basis of the strength 
of this great Nation.
  Now, more than ever, compassion should be our first principle.
  Abortion is violence. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is a 
false choice that no one should ever be forced to make.
  Let's elevate the ideal of motherhood, protect it, nurture it, 
respect it, provide for it, celebrate it, the genius of the feminine, 
and the beauty of all life.
  Mr. Speaker, in a few short weeks, these young people who will, by 
the thousands, tens of thousands, crowd around this Capitol, they are 
really telling us one simple truth: Love them both, just love them 
both.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________