This may be one of those moments where I hold an unpopular opinion, but I stand by it. As a mother who single-handedly raised a 24-year-old and an 18-year-old while serving as their primary breadwinner, I feel well-equipped to offer my perspective. If you choose to run for a seat in Congress, you have an obligation to show up and vote—yes, that includes mothers, too.
When I was a single mother raising my two-year-old son, Barry University opened a campus in Orlando designed for nontraditional law students and offered me a scholarship. Accepting it would have meant selling my home, moving in with my parents, and essentially entrusting them with raising my son for the next four years. Torn about the decision, I sought guidance from a mentor who offered this wise advice: 'You can have it all, just not all at once.' Reflecting on that, I chose to focus on raising my son and forgo law school. Today, he’s a thriving adult, and we share a close bond—I’m confident I made the right call. Similarly, if members of Congress can’t commit to being in Washington, D.C., to vote, perhaps they should rethink the timing of their candidacy.
You can already see where this is going, right? Now, they want young Moms AND Dads to be able to vote from home. Next, it will be people with Long Covid, people who homeschool, people who are having elective surgery and anyone else who submits an excuse. No, Members of Congress need to show up, vote in person, explain their vote and be on the record.
Aren’t we terminating numerous federal employees simply because they refused to return to in-person work? I’ve been told this is both ‘great’ and ‘fair,’ as federal workers should be required to show up at the office like everyday Americans. I fully support that sentiment, however, it seems certain members of Congress believe they’re exempt from the same standards they impose on others.
Serving in Congress should be an act of sacrifice. For far too long, however, it has enriched its members far more than it has benefited the citizens of America.
.
