‘Meaning of Roe vs. Wade’
The Times editorial about the current state of affairs regarding Roe vs. Wade shows a refreshing change in tone, compared to past editorials on abortion. The usual hyperbole was absent; pro-lifers weren’t described as “wanting to return to the days of back-alley butchers and coat hangers.”
And yet, it’s plainly clear, of course, that The Times still backs the 1973 ruling: “ . . . But women are far better protected by Roe vs. Wade than they are likely to be if the battle for their rights must be fought state by state, year by year.”
While I appreciate the more tempered writing, I still can’t resist pointing out the obvious inherent irony; Roe vs. Wade’s “protection” for women is costly--the innocent unborn pay with their very lives.
ELIZABETH WATSON
Fullerton
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
