Letter: Erica Ehrhardt, Leesburg

Editor: I signed up for Ed Gillespie’s “InformED Decisions conversation” recently. I was hoping to get a chance to meet the man who wants to represent me as Governor of Virginia, and to ask him about his views.

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post recently reported, Gillespie is screening his audiences to keep out anyone who isn’t already inclined to support him. At a similar event in Danville, Gillespie let in everyone who signed up except for one man, a Democratic staffer. I’m not a member of the Democratic Party, so I’m not sure how I ended up on Gillespie’s enemy list, but I was likewise denied a ticket. I and a few others who couldn’t get tickets met in the parking lot outside the event, to have our own conversation about issues in the gubernatorial election. We were not near the entrance, nor obstructing traffic, not holding signs nor yelling nor attempting to bother the attendees of the event, merely talking quietly amongst ourselves. Yet the event organizers still felt the need to order us the leave the area. This suggests that Gillespie won’t tolerate any conversation that isn’t tightly under his control.

Since Gillespie will never listen to the question I wanted to ask, I want to present it to the public instead. My question for Gillespie is: what option does he offer women? Gillespie wants to completely ban abortion. He wants to teach students that birth control is a sin, and his fellow Republicans in the general assembly recently cut out funding that would have covered long term birth control for low income women. Gillespie also doesn’t want the government to acknowledge lesbian marriages.

Gillespie also wants to defund Planned Parenthood, which would deny many women access to affordable prenatal care. He opposes expanding Medicaid. Currently, a family of four that earns even $13,000 per year is too rich to be covered by Medicaid. Gillespie signed a pledge to prohibit young mothers from receiving welfare, and prevent mothers from receiving increased aid when they have additional children. Gillespie received over $100,000 from Education Secretary Betty DeVos’s family and embraces her harmful policies. He wants to withdraw support from public schools.

What choice does Gillespie consider acceptable for women? He sees lesbian relationships as illegitimate, so presumably he wants us to marry men, but then he says birth control is a sin, abortion should be illegal, and he wants to cut off pregnant women and mothers from as much financial, medical, and educational support as possible. What options does he offer us?

Pro-choice activists sometimes call conservatives “anti-choice”, but Gillespie worse than anti-choice, because anti-choice implies that one action is acceptable, mandatory. Gillespie is not only against the right to choose, but against every possible choice we could make. In contrast, his opponent Ralph Northam’s policies would support women in whatever choices we make, from our medical choices to our consensual relationships to providing for the children that we choose to have.

Erica Ehrhardt, Leesburg

4 thoughts on “Letter: Erica Ehrhardt, Leesburg

  • 2017-10-04 at 12:21 pm

    I’m curious as to why the writer believes she needs the ‘support’ of a male politician to engage in a consensual relationship? Government retains no role in who you have a relationship with, other than the under-aged, (and there are plenty of lefties who want to withdraw that card from the deck too.)

    Have leftists been so robbed of their individuality they feel compelled to seek the ‘support’ of a party apparatus, or the approval of good ole’ boy Ralph?

    • 2017-10-09 at 5:24 pm

      I don’t seen anyone contradicting the particulars of Erica’s case, although they’ve cleverly discerned her political leanings. Why that matters is a mystery. Last I checked, she’s free to support whatever party supports her views. At least one party is brave enough to answer her question.

      But “government retains no role in who you have a relationships with” and “plenty of lefties” want to get rid of statutory rape? C’mon, man. On the “no role” issue, the VP and many others are still fighting to prevent gay people from marrying, visiting their partners in the hospital, filing taxes as a couple, and so on. Last I checked, marriage was a relationship and these were roles.

      I’d like to see the evidence about all the “lefties” who want remove legal protections for minors. That’s a pretty serious accusation and, call me crazy, but it’d be nice to see some facts to back it up.

  • 2017-10-04 at 4:06 pm


    If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, it’s probably a duck…. Why are you online, all over the web, in full support of all those silly Democrat Politicians?!? I realize someone doesn’t have to be a “registered democrat”, but your letter above, and your online activity, are a bit telling about your preference. I’m just sayin’……

  • 2017-10-16 at 11:32 am

    The author is entitled to any opinion she wishes; ergo – a letter to the editor. Few care who the author supports. What’s fascinating is her reliance on a shifty down state politician and a corrupt political party to provide her with support in personal relationships. How does one lower their self to that state of mind?

    The Vice President and others have their opinions, and they’re irrelevant; that ship sailed long, long ago, and with good reason. Government has no, nor ever should have had, any stake in the personal and consensual relationships of the individual, baring those of the under aged or manipulation of the impaired.

    So let’s dispense with the whole “the scary conservatives are coming!” thing. It’s silly, manipulative, and a complete fabrication of reality intended to frighten people for political reasons. Perhaps the author of this letter falls for such shameless gimmicks, but reasonable people know there’s no one coming to knock on their bedroom doors. It’s a sham.

    Which lefties are about eliminating underage protections? Most of Hollywood, given their long time and fervent support (standing ovations even) of child rapist Roman Polanski, and the near silence among leftists at the mere mention of the North American Man Boy Love Association. Add in the ACLU who (sadly overrun and controlled by leftists) even defended them in a child abduction/rape/murder case. Bill Clinton was a side kick of convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffery Epstein. You think he didn’t know? You think Hillery Clinton didn’t know about Harvey’s predatory acts? And we’re lectured by lefties that ‘silence is consent.’ Hypocrites.

Leave a Reply