•••
Dr. Scott Jensen announced in his June 25 commentary ("Abortion reconsidered: reading our collective moral compass") that he's adopted a more "nuanced" view of abortion policy since his failed bid for governor last year. "I'm done with rigid proclamations insisting on banning abortions," he tells us. He adds that his abortion views are increasingly influenced by "the importance of bodily autonomy" and "the moral imperative to allow each of us, as much as possible, the right to shape our personal moral compass."
But in a twist that seems to contradict all this fine language about individual liberty, Jensen argues that state legislators should draft a constitutional amendment to put before voters next year containing what they determine to be "balanced" and "bipartisan" limits on abortion access. The only one of these possible "balanced" restrictions that he mentions is limiting third-trimester abortions, the only argument for that being that many voters "view them as repugnant or incomprehensible."
This proposal for politicians to draft a constitutional amendment also comes just before Jensen says that he's "convinced politicians are not specifically qualified to establish Minnesota's abortion policy." This seemingly contradictory statement may ironically be the strongest point of the commentary. For abortion policy to be truly nuanced, governments should leave these complicated medical and moral decisions to those best qualified to make them — doctors and their patients.
Bruce Williams, New Brighton
•••
Dear Star Tribune: As a prominent media platform, you have the responsibility to use that platform for the public good. Publishing Scott Jensen's commentary against reproductive freedom — after the inordinate amount of free media space that he was accorded during the last election — is to squander that power. In the future, please provide space instead to writers who have relevant solutions to some of the real problems that we face.