Proposition 73 and future of abortions

George Skelton (column, Nov. 3) makes very cogent arguments for voting “no” on all the ballot measures, and that is what I had already done on my absentee ballot.

However, he missed the most important issue with respect to Proposition 73 (parental notification). According to the legislative analyst, the proposition would embed in the state Constitution a definition of abortion as causing “the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.”

I believe the next step in this campaign against abortion is to have some ideologue prosecutor bring murder charges against those participating in an abortion, such charges being based on the California Constitution.

IRWIN GREENWALD

Woodland Hills

*

Proposition 73 defines abortion as “causing the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” Sounds right to me. My daughter was born 29 years ago, two months premature and weighing less than 3 pounds -- very small by the standards of the day. How people can seriously consider a child in the womb as a nonperson is beyond me.

This is not democracy run amok, it is common sense, and if it takes a special election, so be it.

RICHARD FINKEN

Tustin

*

If anyone needs prompt, safe, easily accessible abortion services, it is a teenage girl. To force her to go through a pregnancy and bear a child is in itself child abuse. The provisions in Proposition 73 would make it hard, if not impossible for some, to end the trauma of an accidental pregnancy.

JULIE MAY

Los Angeles

*

So your latest poll shows Proposition 73 winning with 51% voting yes (Nov. 3). The battle for women’s rights continues. I just really don’t understand people and why they are ready to hand over their personal rights to the government. Not every girl can talk with her parents for fear of abuse and abandonment.

I know; this is a life I lived, as do countless girls today. Looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me.

LORI MORSE

Los Angeles