Readers Write: Abortion
A time to welcome, not disparage.
•••
On Sunday I attended the abortion rights rally at the State Capitol, along with 5,000 other supporters. Having four daughters, I have always supported the pro-choice position, even though I am a conservative white man. To my dismay, many used the rally as an opportunity to attack conservative white men, most notably Rep. Ilhan Omar, who issued the following warning to the women in the crowd: "If you don't want to go back to a time when ultraconservative white men decide what you do with your body, you have to fight back with us" ("Thousands rally for abortion rights," July 18).
Apparently Omar is unaware of the makeup of the Supreme Court that rendered the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that granted women the right to an abortion during the first trimester. The justice who wrote the Roe opinion was Minnesotan Harry Blackmun, a conservative white male nominated to the court by President Richard Nixon. The chief justice and leader of the court was Minnesota's own Warren Burger, another conservative white male nominated by Nixon. In fact, Roe was criticized most severely by Democratic Sen. Joe Biden and Democratic icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Supporters of women's rights, including abortion rights, should focus on encouraging voters to elect pro-choice legislators and avoid turning the issue into an opportunity to attack conservative white men. They may be surprised to learn that some conservative white men are sympathetic to the ends they hope to achieve.
Ronald Haskvitz, Golden Valley
•••
Roe v. Wade was reversed because it was a poorly constructed ruling. Many abortion supporters agreed. Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, author of Roe, stated that "Roe borders on the indefensible." In a Washington Post article, he observed, "even most 'jurisprudes' — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, stated in 2003 that "As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent." Justice Ginsburg was concerned with the constitutional vulnerability of Roe. She believed it would have been better in 1973 to first patiently promote abortion rights at the state level.
Roe relied on the "right to privacy" as constitutional justification. However, neither "abortion" nor "right to privacy" are mentioned in the Constitution. That fact weakened arguments for "a constitutional right to choose."
Personally, I believe a compromise federal legislative solution was possible. Polls indicate 70% of Americans believe there should be restrictions on abortion, but that type of compromise was blocked by ideologues on both sides, i.e., those who want all abortions to be forbidden vs. those who support "on-demand" access to full-term abortion.
Finally, the abortion debate is not merely a theological argument for most anti-abortion activists. It's an argument about the unsettled question of, "What is the definition of human life?" It's a nuanced question, but one which must be debated if the abortion issue is to find some sort of peace.
The abortion debate will now be managed by individual states — our laboratories of democracy.
Steve Bakke, Edina
•••
With Roe v. Wade overturned, Minnesota is now one of only a handful of Midwestern states where abortion remains legal and protected. That could easily change with this November's election. Our governor remains the last, best defense of reproductive freedom in our state.
Gov. Tim Walz has already signed an executive order requiring state agencies to protect Minnesotans providing, seeking or obtaining lawful reproductive health care to the fullest extent of their authority. The executive order also forbids state agencies from assisting other states aiming to seek sanctions or press criminal charges against anyone seeking or providing legal health care services in Minnesota except when required to do so by law. Scott Jensen, on the other hand, stated at one point in his campaign that he would move to ban abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, if he's elected.
If we want to protect our reproductive rights, we cannot become complacent, and we absolutely must turn out and cast our votes this fall — not just for our current pro-choice governor, but for pro-choice candidates up and down the ballot.
Ellen Rozek, St. Paul
•••
In the Star Tribune on July 18:
On page 1 we mourn the death of a 4-year-girl killed in Ukraine.
On page 2 we remember 80 years ago when children were rounded up in France by the Nazis and sent to the gas chambers.
Back to page 1, we rally to support women's rights to kill their baby in the womb.
Please explain. Which is it: Do we or do we not value human life?
Patrick Finley, Edina
•••
Our current maternal health care situation is a dangerous, dystopian mess, as outlined in "Post-Roe maternal care in turmoil" (July 17).
In the ensuing three weeks since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, providers, patients, families and health care systems are scrambling dangerously to navigate a tangled morass for previously routine care for pregnant women.
Requiring second and third opinions for procedures, pharmacist approval for medication and even legal consultation to provide care for women potentially at risk for dying, bleeding or infection from an ectopic pregnancy, incomplete miscarriage or risky pregnancy? This is modern medical care? These were rights previously granted 50 years ago with the passage of Roe v. Wade. That OB-GYN providers would have to deal with this fallout in emergent situations is unbelievable. That pregnant women would have to worry about receiving routine, potentially lifesaving care in the United States is unconscionable. Who among us doesn't have a partner/spouse, sister, daughter or mother who easily could be in a similar situation?
As a family physician who practiced obstetrics for 30 years and continues to care for women of reproductive age, I am ashamed of our nation. Please contact your state and national senators and representatives to counter this dangerous ruling. Women, health care providers and concerned men are angry. This situation is unacceptable and threatens our health care as a country.
Samuel P. Seltz, Afton
•••
I was educated in Catholic schools from first grade through my sophomore year of college. There I learned that abortion was a grievous sin, akin to murder. But back then I also learned that the Catholic Church distinguished between elective abortion and treatment for miscarriage — pregnancy loss that occurs due to a medical problem. When a woman miscarried, a physician could perform a "therapeutic abortion." The intent was not to kill the fetus, which was not viable, but to preserve the mother's health.
According to Mayo Clinic, about 50% of miscarriages are associated with chromosome problems. A mother's health problems, such as diabetes or thyroid disease, can also lead to miscarriage. And sometimes a fertilized egg implants and grows in the fallopian tube; this is an ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal for the mother.
Miscarriage can be a medical emergency. Yet already in 2008, an article in the American Journal of Public Health noted that Catholic hospitals often delayed treatment until fetal heart tones ceased or the woman became ill — because the normal standard of care was considered sinful.
This misguided view has now infected the secular world. Recent anti-abortion laws threaten medical care for miscarriages and tubal pregnancies, and this means more women will suffer impaired fertility or die of infection and hemorrhage.
Even if you consider elective abortion wrong, please understand it is different from treatment for miscarriage or tubal pregnancy. The misunderstanding of this distinction could literally be the death of your wife, daughter or sister.
Nancy Giguere, Grand Marais, Minn.
