Today I participated in a most unexpected and very public debate with C. Fletcher Armstrong, the director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR)’s southeast region, on a University of Tennessee campus.

This group and its members oppose abortion by going to public places where they are sure to find high pedestrian traffic and displaying graphic images intended to shock viewers into agreeing with them. Among the shocking images, they graphically equate abortion with genocide.

As there were no moderators, Mr. Armstrong, several others who had gathered, and I asked each other questions, responded to them, and reacted to each others’ answers.

I asked him whether or not he believes that all life is precious.

He said yes and, partly in response to an earlier question from one of the several others who entered the debate, even graciously elaborated on his views in his answer. He said that CBR’s goal is to change the laws of our country so that government can do what it is supposed to do: protect life, especially the lives of the weakest members of our society.

Well, I began to point out loudly, if he really believes that all life is precious and that the purpose of government is to protect life – especially the lives of the most vulnerable members of our society – then he should take his belief to its logical conclusion and join those of us who support a public health insurance option, which must be made available to all Americans.

At first he simply refused to respond to my challenge.

But how can he and other members of his organization, who were standing in front of huge posters that directly equate abortion with the Holocaust, simultaneously choose to close their eyes as each year tens of thousands of lives end in this country because millions of Americans do not have health insurance?

I repeated myself in regular refrains, not letting him off the hook.

Citing the same Harvard University study that Rep. Alan Grayson highlighted on the House floor, I called on him and his fellow members of the CBR, who claim to hold life so dear, to join us in stopping the deaths of 44,000 Americans each year, human beings who die, who lose their lives when they get sick or are injured, for no other reason than because they do not have enough money.

I stopped short of calling it genocide, though during the 1.5-hour long debate I did say that these deaths are the result of a kind of violence.

Honestly, how could he stand in front of huge posters that show images directly equating abortion with the Holocaust and think it’s ok to close his eyes to the needless deaths of so many thousands of Americans each year?

Well, eventually, I got a response from him.

Now here’s what I want you to know about C. Fletcher Armstrong, the director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR)’s southeast region, this guy who claims to care so much about human life:

When he finally addressed my point, C. Fletcher Armstrong literally responded to my challenge by ignoring the thousands of human beings who die in the United States each year, though they do not have to – he literally dismissed the fact that 44,000 Americans die in the United States each year, lives that end because so many people in our society do not have enough money to save their lives when they get sick or are injured – and instead talked about how many Americans like their health insurance.

Seriously.

He said that he gets his insurance through his wife’s employer and that, as he put it, he really likes it.

That was his answer.

When I questioned him further, asking him whether he would still like his health insurance if he could get the same coverage while paying less for it, he eventually responded by accusing me of being anti-profit and opposed to the private sector, and said that all I wanted to do was destroy private health insurance companies.

So what is he defending again? What does he stand for?

C. Fletcher Armstrong presumes to tell others that they must open their eyes to genocide.

C. Fletcher Armstrong presumes to insist that the state should have the power to coerce women to conform to his personal beliefs about life and death.

But in reality he could literally care less about life.

He could care less about those in our society who are vulnerable and need help.

And he went on as the debate continued. He said that he works hard and won’t apologize for what he has. So what? Was he implying that the unemployed are immoral or lazy and don’t deserve to live? Yes, that’s exactly what I think he was saying.

He said that he does not want his money “to go to people who make bad choices,” before catching himself in time to point out that some people choose to smoke, for example. But I have encountered a similar argument before, about 15 years ago, when a Fundamentalist minister who lived in the house where I rented a studio apartment above the garage in upstate New York explicitly said to me that “I do not want my money to be used to help prostitutes and sinners.”

Please take a moment to email C. Fletcher Armstrong at cbrse-cfa@iol24.com and tell him that you heard about this debate on the University of Tennessee campus, which occurred on Oct 12, 2009.

Tell him what you think of his choice to close his eyes to the tens of thousands of human beings who die every year in the United States for no other reason than that they are vulnerable members of our society who do not have health insurance.

Tell him that he doesn’t care about the horrors of genocide, unless he can use images of them to push his personal opinions on others.

Tell him that the unnecessary deaths of 44,000 Americans each year are the result of people like him, people who claim to believe that life is precious, but, in reality, simply don’t care about anyone but themselves, people who are really happy with their own health insurance and are willing to close their eyes to the suffering and death of other people who die only because they live in the United States and do not have health insurance.