No Section

Readers Write: Abortion and Roe v. Wade

Abortion must remain available.

May 4, 2022 at 10:45PM

Mifepristone and misoprostol, medications used for at-home abortions, are seen in Guanajuato, Mexico, in December. (Marian Carrasquero, New York Times/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Abortion is a medically indicated procedure in some cases — period. To wave the specter of prosecution over doctors or pregnant women based on moral principles is outrageous ("Outrage, rallies on the left, cautious optimism on right," front page, May 4). Where are the moral police when embryos are abandoned inside in vitro fertilization clinics, thousands of frozen "babies"? How is it ethical to force a child victim of incest or rape to endure pregnancy and delivery, at risk to her life? Why should a legislator have more power to intervene medically than a woman's doctor, for any reason?

When contraception is universally safe, affordable and effective and when women do not die from septic, ectopic or high-risk pregnancies, we can discuss the legality of abortion. Until then, it must remain a medical option.

Mary C. Kemen, Chanhassen

The writer is a retired physician.

•••

I hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Abortion is legalized murder. When Roe was decided in 1973, there was still a question about when life began. Since then, most scientists and doctors agree that life begins at conception. Many abortion doctors admit that they are taking the life of a human baby. Because the baby's mother isn't ready to parent a child, hasn't the money to raise a child, hasn't finished her education, or got prenatal test results showing there might be a "problem" with the child, we as a society encourage the murder of the baby. Does this make sense? Not to me. All these excuses for abortion can be solved using other solutions. A mother needs family and friends, even strangers, to help her make a better choice than letting an abortionist murder her child.

I am one of the "protesters" mentioned in the May 1 front-page article "Seeing a future after Roe." I don't go to Whole Woman's Health clinic, which is featured in the article, but I do go to a different Twin Cities abortion clinic. I go there to peacefully pray and to offer better choices to women. I can't force these choices on anyone, but I can offer the choices and offer to help her through a tough time, however long that lasts. We need to not only make abortion illegal, but also make it unthinkable by treating the unborn baby as just as much of a life as the mother of that child.

Donna L. Peterson, Hutchinson, Minn.

•••

This battle over of Roe v. Wade is about privacy.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not specifically mention a right to privacy. In the 1973 decision of Roe, the court held that the Constitution — via emanations from other rights (because rights specified in the Constitution are not the only ones that people have) — gave voice to the existence of the right to privacy. This was originally given voice by Griswold v. Connecticut (the marital privacy right to contraception). By 1973, the court expanded Griswold, saying the right to privacy was fundamental and substantive and not limited to marital privacy.

Now we, as a country, are on the precipice of having a right taken away.

Some states have been moving toward this for years, not just in the abortion battle but in matters of the LGBT community. Look no further than Texas, where laws have been enacted preventing a parent's right, in the privacy of their home, to address the difficult issues around their child's sexuality or identity. The laws are criminalizing what parents do to help their children.

You can have your beliefs about abortion. I have mine. But they are of no consequence to the lives of women who will be effected by this decision.

If the court takes away one right, which will be the next to be taken away?

Erika L. Christensen, Lake Elmo

•••

While reading Sunday's "Seeing a future after Roe" story about the current expenses and inconveniences of operating the women's health clinic in Sioux Falls, I wondered why the clinic servicing southeast South Dakota was not already located 15 miles to the east in Minnesota, where the regulations are much saner. The extra 15 miles of driving to save 48 hours of waiting time and a second flight by the doctors just makes sense.

With yesterday's revelations, this move and adding other border clinics will be necessary for servicing South Dakota, Iowa and North Dakota. But then I thought that these states actually may have an in-state solution for their more western and southern reaches. The same laws that say state gambling laws do not apply to the sovereign tribal reservations should also apply to state abortion restrictions. Thus, why aren't the providers negotiating and/or lobbying with the tribal governments to establish clinics on the reservations? I have to believe that dealing with the tribal governments would be a lot more straightforward than our current federal and state governments. This could also be used to bring more local pro-choice solutions to many states, not just those mentioned.

Miles Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

Chief Justice John Roberts said of the leaked draft opinion: "To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed."

Indeed, the integrity of the court cannot be compromised by the leak when the Senate hearings of several justices seemingly now turn out to be nothing but lies. In their Senate hearings, they adamantly proclaimed that Roe was an important, established precedent that had been reaffirmed many times. These justices embody integrity only if words have no meaning.

The integrity of the court cannot be compromised when Sen. Mitch McConnell obstructed then-President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee for eight months before a presidential election, then crammed through Amy Coney Barrett with just over one month before the next.

Any "integrity" the court may have had at one time has been undermined by the justices themselves and their Republican collaborators in Congress.

Gary Maher, Minneapolis

•••

I, like many women, do not consider abortion essential to women's equality but a symptom of our continuing inequality. I believe it is time we stopped focusing so much money and political energy on abortions and started focusing on stopping the causes.

So much has changed since 1973, bringing equality for pregnant women closer to reality. Access to contraceptives is not an obstacle. It is no longer a stigma to be unmarried and pregnant. It is no longer legal to fire a pregnant woman. It is no longer legal to deny health insurance coverage to pregnant women by calling pregnancy a pre-existing condition. Creating an adoption plan is now socially acceptable.

The number of abortions is still staggering, while both political parties refuse to deal with its many causes, including lack of livable wages, child care or affordable housing, and the presence of unhealthy relationships, which are too often ignored and which abortion merely reinforces.

Many women are in relationships with narcissistic, emotionally or physically abusive men for whom the freedom to engage in sex comes without the concomitant responsibility of caring for the unborn child.

Even the brightest, most independent women fall in love with these narcissists and see no other way to deal with a pregnancy unwanted by their partners and ultimately their unhappy selves.

A new women's movement would challenge every aspect of our culture that creates sex objects of women and would focus on solutions that give women the knowledge and support to be in healthy relationships.

Janet Robert, Wayzata