Surgeon General Nominee

* Re “Surgeon General Fight Opens Front in Continuing War Over Abortion,” Opinion, Feb. 12:

As do most media-oriented pro-choicers, Susan Estrich assumes that criticism of Dr. Henry Foster and other doctors for performing abortions is based on a desire to oppress women or to demean their position in society. The reality is that the great majority of pro-lifers believe human life begins at conception and that abortion results in the taking of an innocent human life. It is the desire of pro-lifers to protect these lives.

Estrich refers quite accurately to the fact that pro-lifers have “lost the battle” in court over abortion. Unfortunately, too many of those involved in the abortion debate have come to view it as a battle and the debate takes on more of the characteristics of a battle every day. As a society, we have two ways to deal with this issue: confrontation or reason. The current trend is obviously toward confrontation, if not violent confrontation. Foster may well be a victim of that confrontation and there will be other victims unless and until we find a reasonable means for dealing with this issue.

A large percentage of Americans find Foster’s conduct in performing one or 12 or 39 abortions abhorrent not because such abortions liberated women, but because they terminated innocent human lives. Many more who believe abortion should be legal are nonetheless uncomfortable with the procedure and do not believe someone who has performed abortions (not to mention hysterectomies on mentally ill women) should serve as our surgeon general.

ANDREW F. PUZDER

Irvine

Puzder is a founding director of the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice. * Estrich makes a serious error when she states that the only problem with the Foster nomination is abortion. It has very little to do with the fact that Foster has committed abortions but everything to do with whether the man is capable of telling the truth.

In a Feb. 3 press release, Foster stated that he has committed fewer than a dozen abortions. This number is vastly different than the one he gave to the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare Ethics Advisory Board on Nov. 10, 1978, where he testified that he committed nearly 700 abortions.

If Foster cannot tell the truth about his own medical practice, how can Americans be comfortable with his appointment to the nation’s highest medical position?

ANNE J. KINDT

Granada Hills

* I am deeply concerned by the politics of intimidation surrounding the Foster nomination for surgeon general. It is wrong that this doctor is called on to “defend” abortions performed in the course of his career, when those abortions were legal and yes, moral. An abortion in the circumstance of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother may be seen as an act of mercy and courage on the part of the mother and the doctor.

I support the right of each doctor to reflect and choose if he is at ease and willing to perform an abortion and to make that personal choice for himself. If Foster abhors abortion, he should not perform abortions. But if a climate of fear is allowed to dictate the conduct of doctors, because they fear professional penalty, it is no different than a doctor who does not perform abortions because of the terrorist who lurks outside his clinic with a gun.

RACELLE SCHAEFER

Los Angeles