Supreme Court on Abortion
In your article “Clinics Wrestle With Gag Order on Abortion” (May 25), a Planned Parenthood Clinic client asks, “If someone can’t afford to bring a child into the world, why should they have to?”
The answer to that question is that they don’t have to. With education and contraceptives available to all, including the poor, they can easily make the choice not to have a child. But, if a woman is pregnant, she has already made the choice.
Education and accessibility of contraception were the original mandates of Planned Parenthood. But the organization has gone far beyond this to become the strongest advocate of what many consider to be infanticide--abortion.
To me, the above question is equivalent to asking, “If someone can’t afford to continue to feed and maintain a child in the world, why should they have to?”
ED FLANAGAN, Monrovia
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.
