Letters to the Editor

Abortion editorial ignored Roe v. Wade

Editor,

I must take exception to the entire line of thought that went into your Sept. 27 editorial, “Abortion services should be available.” Roe vs. Wade forbade the denial of access to abortion under the theory that abortion was purely a personal question of ethics for which the state has no legal right to regulate. The imposition of a mandate requiring these services in all health facilities receiving federal funding (for practical purposes all medical facilities) imposes the personal ethics of the victors of Roe vs. Wade upon all health care workers by forcing them not only to accept the legality abortion but to actually be a part of an organization which in fact performs it if they wish to remain in the health care field; and of all tax payers by forcing them to submit their incomes to this purpose whether their conscience holds that the act is a right that should be open to every woman, a necessary evil, or (as some individuals truly believe) a mortal sin for which they might be held eternally accountable even if they contribute to it even involuntarily. I realize that an editorial is a statement of opinion and your opinion is not that far out of the mainstream, but this is a highly emotionally charged issue on both sides and one reason why we have such an insane federal policy on abortion is that advocates on both sides of the debate have completely dismissed the opposition's right to dissent in any meaningful way. The end to any hostility begins with the admission that the opposition has a right to their point of view even if it cannot be fully accommodated. Given the large number of people who advocate the availability of low or no cost abortion and the size of the current privately funded provider networks (e.g. Planned Parenthood), I fail to see why it should become a burden on all Americans, regardless of their own personal convictions, to further extend this network into all healthcare facilities.

— Cris S. Allen

crissallen@juno.com