Looking for clarification on couple of issues

Dear Editor:

Mr. Craavack has been enjoying quite a run in the press with his ‘aw shucks ma’am and true-blue American persona shtick since his slim victory over Oberstar.

But I have just two questions for Chip. First, as he is a vocal critic of government employees, union “excesses,” unions in general, and, along with his party, expresses outrage over public employees “double-dipping” with more than one government financed pension, perhaps he’d be willing to tell us which of his three government pensions, his VA, House, and social security pensions, he’s going to refuse, and which of his three, very generous, taxpayer-funded health insurance programs he’ll be cutting loose, again, the VA, his House health insurance which is vastly superior to what most Americans are able to ever obtain, or dream about, and of course, when young Chip is old enough, Medicare.

Secondly, and most importantly, I would like Chip to justify, or at least explain, his unqualified support for HR3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act; the bill that redefines rape to mean it’s only rape if you’re beaten unconscious with visible physical trauma. So, it’s not rape if you’re “just” threatened with a weapon, it’s not rape if you’re unconscious from alcohol or a date-rape drug, and it’s not incest if the victim is over 18 years of age, because of course our country is experiencing a rash of lying women rushing off to get abortions under the “ruse” of being raped.

I would also like him to explain how this bill is a “family value.” And although the original bill was pulled after justifiable public outrage, the new bill allows a committee to change the language of the new bill, at any time, for any reason, without public input or legislative action.

Mr. Craavack’s office did not respond to repeated requests for clarification on these issues.

Steven Hansmann
Cambridge

up arrow