Letters: North Dakota’s abortion decision

Re “N. Dakota’s dubious honor,” Editorial, March 19

As an obstetrician and gynecologist, I strongly urge North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple to put women and families first and veto the bill banning abortions after a fetus’ heartbeat can be detected.

I have cared for pregnant women with complex medical conditions. For some of these women, pregnancy termination is the only way to protect their health or save their lives. Roe vs. Wade made it possible to ensure that more women were able to access safe, legal and necessary abortions.

North Dakota’s legislature wants to go back to the pre-Roe era. I fervently hope Dalrymple does not allow this to happen.

Aparna Sridhar, MD

Los Angeles

I find it difficult that you can accept the killing of a living fetus, that is, one with an actual heartbeat.

Picture the fetus as either your mother or yourself being snuffed out during early development, squirming and writhing in distress as the end approaches. How well does that sit with you?

Do you really see any difference between this scenario and killing a full-term infant as it emerges from the womb?

Robert Andrews

Claremont

The anti-choice legislators of North Dakota and Arkansas are as resourceful as they are reactionary. They fully intended to enact clearly unconstitutional bills.

Given the possibility of a conservative vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court during President Obama’s term — and the currently problematic prospects for 2016 — they are attempting to set the stage for a review of Roe vs. Wade by the present conservative majority. With Justice Antonin Scalia being 77 and Justice Anthony Kennedy 76, best to strike while the old irons are still hot.

A.E. Buchman

Florence, Ore.

ALSO:

Letters: WMD intelligence -- errors or lies?

Letters on letters: Defending the old school

Letters: The libertarian-conservative marriage