Letters to the Editor

Thousands gathered for an antiabortion rally in Dallas on Saturday.
Thousands gathered for an antiabortion rally in Dallas on Saturday. (TOM FOX / Dallas Morning News)
Posted: January 25, 2013

A way to protect mother and child

The column "Why Roe is the keystone of rights" (Sunday) brought up many good points for people of conscience to consider. Questions about prenatal care, early-childhood development, and the need to provide support for pregnant women and newborns all need to be raised. I was reminded of different questions raised by the late Gov. Robert P. Casey, in his 1996 autobiography, Fighting for Life, which tells the story of the double transplant he underwent, as well as his advocacy for the unborn. This passage is from his book:

"We can talk on and on about the problems facing children: abusive parents, malnourishment, neglect. But almost always these social ills are just signs of a deeper malady. I would even say that in our culture today there is a callousness, a meanness toward the child - a violent streak slowly spreading out across society. Let me say it directly: Abortion is the ultimate violence. We worry about the social problem of violence. We read of abandoned children, abused children, children molested or killed, children themselves committing acts of violence. Where did this spirit come from? How has life come to seem so cheap? I believe it's not only possible, it's inevitable. If a child in the womb, the most innocent thing on earth, is not safe - then who is? If as a nation we don't revere that child, that innocence, what will make us revere any life?"

On the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, some may ask, as Casey did, Who speaks for the child?, and wonder if we may hope to find a solution that protects both mother and child.

Bob Giuliano, Wayne

Need for reproductive health

As a taxpayer who was educated by Catholic nuns through 12th grade, I support the democratic process that provides tax dollars to be used for health services to all Americans, regardless of the perceived "immorality" of their choices by others ("Angry and irrational," Tuesday).

As a woman with four grandchildren and twins on the way, I know how important reproductive health is to everyone, not just women. I shudder to think of returning to the days when family planning was not possible and when we lost women to illegal (unsanitary, unsafe) abortions.

No one is "pro-abortion." The need for abortion would be much reduced if the anti-contraception crazies would stop tying up funds for reproductive health services. Safe, affordable abortion should be available when necessary.

Anette Klingman, Norristown

Another take on the oath

As lawyers are prone to do, Burton Caine believes that his interpretation of the oath the president takes is the only possible one ("Constitution is clear on oath," Tuesday).

Yes, the Constitution requires the president to make an oath/affirmation containing those exact words. However, nothing prohibits the president from affirming any other nonconflicting words he chooses. Further, the Tenth Amendment states that "powers not delegated to the United States ... nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Thus the president - one of the "people" - is free to affirm text of his own making, in addition to that proscribed by the Constitution.

Finally, if the officiating chief justice states anything in addition to the specified words, the president is free to ignore them.

Davis Reese, Bryn Mawr, drr66@verizon.net

comments powered by Disqus
|
|
|
|
|