A Conversation with Tom Vigneulle
by Bill Fortenberry
This past Saturday, I had the opportunity to spend an hour with Tom Vigneulle. Tom is one of seven candidates running for a seat in the US House of Representatives that is being vacated by Spencer Bachus. I first met Tom after a debate between the candidates held at Samford University on March 31st. I had attended the debate in support of a different candidate, and I was still supporting that candidate after the debate when Tom introduced himself to me. Our short conversation piqued my interest, and a few days later, I found myself on the phone with his campaign manager to request an interview. As a result of that interview, I have developed the following opinions of Tom and his candidacy for the votes of Alabama’s 6th district:
I. Tom Vigneulle is a Christian with a strong Christian heritage.
I began my interview by asking Tom if he was a Christian. Of course, any politician worth his salt in Alabama is going to say yes to that question, so I added to it by quoting I Peter 3:15 and asking him to explain to me how I could escape Hell and obtain eternal life. Tom responded to my question by telling me that I needed to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior.
I then asked Tom about his father, and he proudly launched into a long list of his father’s accomplishments including: pastoring Shades Mountain Independent Church, starting Shades Mountain Christian School, co-founding Save-a-Life of Alabama, starting World Reach, being the director of the Alabama chapter of the Moral Majority and much more. I suggested that Tom had some fairly large shoes to fill, and he corrected me by saying that it would be impossible for him to do as much for the Lord as his father did. Instead, he is focused on doing everything that God brings his way.
One of those things was the opportunity to teach a class of adults at the Church at Brook Hills where Tom is a member. Tom assured me that he is an active and faithful member of his church, and it was refreshing to hear a politician speak of spiritual things without any hesitation.
II. Tom has a proper view of the government’s role in education.
When I asked Tom what role the federal government should have in education, his answer was very simply, “None.” He was adamant that the educational system of any community is best handled at the local level rather than on a national scale. He also suggested that if the federal government wanted to promote good education, then the Department of Education could be used to distribute educational funding in the form of vouchers which would follow each child to the school of his choice. I’m certainly not in favor of vouchers being used on a federal level, but I like the fact that Tom is opposed to any policy making role for the Department of Education.
III. Tom is willing to do the right thing in the area of illegal immigration
On the issue of illegal immigration, Tom holds the same view as all the other candidates in this race. He opposes amnesty, and he thinks that the government should enforce the rules which are already on the books. But then we began discussing the biblical model of immigration which was used in ancient Israel.
According to the Bible, ancient Israel had open borders, but they had no government handouts and no deportation system. This meant that anyone could come to Israel, but only those who were willing to work for their own living would ever want to do so. It also meant that no immigrant to Israel could hope to use deportation as a means of avoiding punishment for crimes. Anyone who committed a crime in Israel was punished to the full extent of the law regardless of whether he was a citizen or not. Tom recognized this as a workable solution, but he also noted that we are a long way from being able to implement something similar in America.
IV. Tom has a questionable response to Obamacare.
On the question of Obamacare, Tom gave the same answer that I expect to hear from all of the candidates in this race. He stated that he would vote for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act and that he would like to see it replaced by a free market system. Of course, I wanted to get beyond the standard response and see where Tom actually stood in the area of healthcare, so I asked him what kind of free market system he would like to implement.
Tom’s response was that he would prefer a system that would allow insurance companies to sell across state lines and which would also provide a safety net for consumers with pre-existing conditions and for those who cannot afford insurance. He also said that he supports the plan put forward by Dr. Ben Carson.
I see several problems with this answer. First, allowing insurance companies to trade across state lines would not eliminate federal intervention in the healthcare industry; it would increase it. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, so any insurance company who might choose to sell their products across state lines would immediately be brought under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Tom was not aware of this when I asked him about it, but in his defense, I’ve never heard any Republican politician address this point, and Tom said that it was the first time that anyone had ever asked him about it. He promised to study it in more detail, and we moved on to another topic.
At the time of the interview, I was not very familiar with Ben Carson’s healthcare plan, so I did not question Tom about it. However, I have now had time to read up on it, and I am concerned about Tom’s support of this plan. According to an article that he wrote for the Washington Times, Dr. Carson thinks that the solution to our nation’s healthcare woes is to be found in federally mandated health savings accounts. Now, I have no problem with the concept of health savings accounts in general, but I have a very big problem with implementing a federal mandate requiring everyone in America to have such an account. This is not a free market system; it is just a “better” socialist system than Obamacare. I have also heard reports that Dr. Carson’s book America the Beautiful makes several even more questionable claims regarding healthcare.
V. Tom is in favor of a natural marriage amendment to the US Constitution.
One would think that every candidate in this race would support a natural marriage amendment to our federal Constitution, but I have been surprised by the fact that one of the front runners, Will Brooke, has consistently said that social issues like the defense of natural marriage should take a back seat to the economic issues that our nation is facing. Brooke’s position is extremely dangerous, and I was very glad to get Tom’s reassurance that the social issues are of the utmost importance to him.
In regards to the attempts to redefine marriage, Tom was unaware of the fact that homosexual activity of any kind was illegal in Alabama and thirteen other states until the Supreme Court declared state sodomy laws to be unconstitutional in the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas. Tom agreed with me that the court was wrong to reach this decision, and he said that he would be in favor of federal legislation which challenges the Lawrence v. Texas opinion.
VI. Tom is solidly pro-life, and is willing to consider the personhood approach.
Tom also disagrees with Will Brooke’s approach to the issue of abortion. Brooke again says that this issue is not as important as the economic crisis facing our nation, and he does not have anything on his website which even acknowledges the fact that 10,000 children are killed every year by the abortion clinics in our state. Tom, on the other hand, is very passionate about the duty which the government has to protect these innocent lives.
I asked Tom specifically about the Alabama’s fetal pain bill that was passed during the most recent legislative session, and he said that it was a step in the right direction. This law includes an exception which would allow doctors to kill the child if the pregnancy poses a risk to the life or health of the mother, so I asked Tom if he supported these exceptions to abortion laws. He said that he only supported exceptions for the life of the mother, and I pressed him with an important follow-up question.
“Did you know that the life-of-the-mother exception is what caused the Supreme Court to rule the way they did in Roe v. Wade?”
Tom admitted that he had never heard of this before, and said that if it was true, then it would cause him to reconsider his position. I provided him with a copy of my “Ectopic Personhood” article which explains why this exception is not necessary as well as a copy of the Personhood Booklet which presents a plan for ending all abortions without overturning Roe v. Wade. Tom was grateful to have both resources, and he promised to reconsider his position after reading them.
VII. Tom places principle over party.
I also asked Tom a question that I have begun asking of every republican candidate. “Is there any line that the party might cross which would cause you to leave the Republican Party?” Tom gave a good answer in that he said he would leave the Republican Party if the party abandoned its pro-life and pro-family principles. I agree wholeheartedly, but I fear that Tom may actually face that decision far sooner than either of us would wish.
VIII. Conclusion
I thoroughly enjoyed discussing the issues with Tom. He has a very approachable and easy going personality, and I think that he would make an excellent representative for our state. I have some fairly strong reservations about his acceptance of Dr. Carson’s healthcare plan, but I did not question him about it in order to determine how well he understood that plan.
I was very impressed by the way he handled my opposition to his view on the life-of-the-mother exception. He did not become belligerent or upset at all but rather remained calm and expressed interest in my learning more about position. Most importantly, he did not respond with “I’ll have to think about it” or “I’ll ask someone else about it.” Instead, he said “I’ll have to read more about it.” I was more impressed by this short sentence than anything else that Tom said in our one hour long conversation. It is very, very rare to find someone whose first response to new information is a determination to do more reading on the subject, and it is even more rare for that individual to be willing to allow his reading to change his view.
I hope that the voters of Alabama’s 6th district will give Tom Vigneulle their full consideration. You can learn more about Tom at TomforAlabama.com, and I highly recommend watching the video on Tom’s pro-life page of a sermon from Birmingham pastor, David Platt.
I. Tom Vigneulle is a Christian with a strong Christian heritage.
I began my interview by asking Tom if he was a Christian. Of course, any politician worth his salt in Alabama is going to say yes to that question, so I added to it by quoting I Peter 3:15 and asking him to explain to me how I could escape Hell and obtain eternal life. Tom responded to my question by telling me that I needed to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior.
I then asked Tom about his father, and he proudly launched into a long list of his father’s accomplishments including: pastoring Shades Mountain Independent Church, starting Shades Mountain Christian School, co-founding Save-a-Life of Alabama, starting World Reach, being the director of the Alabama chapter of the Moral Majority and much more. I suggested that Tom had some fairly large shoes to fill, and he corrected me by saying that it would be impossible for him to do as much for the Lord as his father did. Instead, he is focused on doing everything that God brings his way.
One of those things was the opportunity to teach a class of adults at the Church at Brook Hills where Tom is a member. Tom assured me that he is an active and faithful member of his church, and it was refreshing to hear a politician speak of spiritual things without any hesitation.
II. Tom has a proper view of the government’s role in education.
When I asked Tom what role the federal government should have in education, his answer was very simply, “None.” He was adamant that the educational system of any community is best handled at the local level rather than on a national scale. He also suggested that if the federal government wanted to promote good education, then the Department of Education could be used to distribute educational funding in the form of vouchers which would follow each child to the school of his choice. I’m certainly not in favor of vouchers being used on a federal level, but I like the fact that Tom is opposed to any policy making role for the Department of Education.
III. Tom is willing to do the right thing in the area of illegal immigration
On the issue of illegal immigration, Tom holds the same view as all the other candidates in this race. He opposes amnesty, and he thinks that the government should enforce the rules which are already on the books. But then we began discussing the biblical model of immigration which was used in ancient Israel.
According to the Bible, ancient Israel had open borders, but they had no government handouts and no deportation system. This meant that anyone could come to Israel, but only those who were willing to work for their own living would ever want to do so. It also meant that no immigrant to Israel could hope to use deportation as a means of avoiding punishment for crimes. Anyone who committed a crime in Israel was punished to the full extent of the law regardless of whether he was a citizen or not. Tom recognized this as a workable solution, but he also noted that we are a long way from being able to implement something similar in America.
IV. Tom has a questionable response to Obamacare.
On the question of Obamacare, Tom gave the same answer that I expect to hear from all of the candidates in this race. He stated that he would vote for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act and that he would like to see it replaced by a free market system. Of course, I wanted to get beyond the standard response and see where Tom actually stood in the area of healthcare, so I asked him what kind of free market system he would like to implement.
Tom’s response was that he would prefer a system that would allow insurance companies to sell across state lines and which would also provide a safety net for consumers with pre-existing conditions and for those who cannot afford insurance. He also said that he supports the plan put forward by Dr. Ben Carson.
I see several problems with this answer. First, allowing insurance companies to trade across state lines would not eliminate federal intervention in the healthcare industry; it would increase it. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, so any insurance company who might choose to sell their products across state lines would immediately be brought under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Tom was not aware of this when I asked him about it, but in his defense, I’ve never heard any Republican politician address this point, and Tom said that it was the first time that anyone had ever asked him about it. He promised to study it in more detail, and we moved on to another topic.
At the time of the interview, I was not very familiar with Ben Carson’s healthcare plan, so I did not question Tom about it. However, I have now had time to read up on it, and I am concerned about Tom’s support of this plan. According to an article that he wrote for the Washington Times, Dr. Carson thinks that the solution to our nation’s healthcare woes is to be found in federally mandated health savings accounts. Now, I have no problem with the concept of health savings accounts in general, but I have a very big problem with implementing a federal mandate requiring everyone in America to have such an account. This is not a free market system; it is just a “better” socialist system than Obamacare. I have also heard reports that Dr. Carson’s book America the Beautiful makes several even more questionable claims regarding healthcare.
V. Tom is in favor of a natural marriage amendment to the US Constitution.
One would think that every candidate in this race would support a natural marriage amendment to our federal Constitution, but I have been surprised by the fact that one of the front runners, Will Brooke, has consistently said that social issues like the defense of natural marriage should take a back seat to the economic issues that our nation is facing. Brooke’s position is extremely dangerous, and I was very glad to get Tom’s reassurance that the social issues are of the utmost importance to him.
In regards to the attempts to redefine marriage, Tom was unaware of the fact that homosexual activity of any kind was illegal in Alabama and thirteen other states until the Supreme Court declared state sodomy laws to be unconstitutional in the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas. Tom agreed with me that the court was wrong to reach this decision, and he said that he would be in favor of federal legislation which challenges the Lawrence v. Texas opinion.
VI. Tom is solidly pro-life, and is willing to consider the personhood approach.
Tom also disagrees with Will Brooke’s approach to the issue of abortion. Brooke again says that this issue is not as important as the economic crisis facing our nation, and he does not have anything on his website which even acknowledges the fact that 10,000 children are killed every year by the abortion clinics in our state. Tom, on the other hand, is very passionate about the duty which the government has to protect these innocent lives.
I asked Tom specifically about the Alabama’s fetal pain bill that was passed during the most recent legislative session, and he said that it was a step in the right direction. This law includes an exception which would allow doctors to kill the child if the pregnancy poses a risk to the life or health of the mother, so I asked Tom if he supported these exceptions to abortion laws. He said that he only supported exceptions for the life of the mother, and I pressed him with an important follow-up question.
“Did you know that the life-of-the-mother exception is what caused the Supreme Court to rule the way they did in Roe v. Wade?”
Tom admitted that he had never heard of this before, and said that if it was true, then it would cause him to reconsider his position. I provided him with a copy of my “Ectopic Personhood” article which explains why this exception is not necessary as well as a copy of the Personhood Booklet which presents a plan for ending all abortions without overturning Roe v. Wade. Tom was grateful to have both resources, and he promised to reconsider his position after reading them.
VII. Tom places principle over party.
I also asked Tom a question that I have begun asking of every republican candidate. “Is there any line that the party might cross which would cause you to leave the Republican Party?” Tom gave a good answer in that he said he would leave the Republican Party if the party abandoned its pro-life and pro-family principles. I agree wholeheartedly, but I fear that Tom may actually face that decision far sooner than either of us would wish.
VIII. Conclusion
I thoroughly enjoyed discussing the issues with Tom. He has a very approachable and easy going personality, and I think that he would make an excellent representative for our state. I have some fairly strong reservations about his acceptance of Dr. Carson’s healthcare plan, but I did not question him about it in order to determine how well he understood that plan.
I was very impressed by the way he handled my opposition to his view on the life-of-the-mother exception. He did not become belligerent or upset at all but rather remained calm and expressed interest in my learning more about position. Most importantly, he did not respond with “I’ll have to think about it” or “I’ll ask someone else about it.” Instead, he said “I’ll have to read more about it.” I was more impressed by this short sentence than anything else that Tom said in our one hour long conversation. It is very, very rare to find someone whose first response to new information is a determination to do more reading on the subject, and it is even more rare for that individual to be willing to allow his reading to change his view.
I hope that the voters of Alabama’s 6th district will give Tom Vigneulle their full consideration. You can learn more about Tom at TomforAlabama.com, and I highly recommend watching the video on Tom’s pro-life page of a sermon from Birmingham pastor, David Platt.