Local Concerns Are For the Locally Elected

On April 11th I chose to commit an act of civil disobedience that led to my first ever arrest. That’s something I take very seriously. I was spurred to action by the bargain made by the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House to limit the rights of women in DC, rights enjoyed by American citizens everywhere except in our nation’s capital. But most important, this deal violated our city's citizens fundamental right to elect the government that makes our laws.

Whether one is passionately for or against a woman's right to an abortion, the right to elect your own government to determine how your tax dollars are spent should not be in dispute. When the founding fathers crafted the US Constitution, they established the District of Columbia for the purpose of protecting the federal government.

There is no federal interest in restricting the rights of the citizens within the District beyond those enjoyed by the residents of the states. This is particularly true in the case of using locally raised funds for legally permissible health care for women residing in DC.

Additionally, forcing the District to fund private religious schools is another example of federal intrusion into a local matter without a clear federal purpose. I fail to see how requiring the District to fund Catholic Schools, Muslim Madrasahs or other religious schools, albeit with taxes raised throughout the country including DC, is a federal concern.

These issues are local concerns and should be subject to local decision making by the elected representatives of those who are paying the bills. I chose to be arrested rather than quietly accept the deal where our rights were bargained away to the leader of the House of Representatives where I have no representation other than a non-voting delegate.

Tommy Wells is a D.C. Councilmember for Ward 6.

###

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/lawmaker-news/157697- local-concerns-are-for-the-locally-elected

      Print Friendly