Letters to the Editor: I am a retired nurse who saw what ‘back-alley’ abortions could do. Women need Roe
To the editor: I am a recently retired registered nurse whose specialty was surgery. When I began practicing nursing in Los Angeles, elective abortions were preformed in the operating rooms of most hospitals in the area. Catholic hospitals were not included. (“Will the 49th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade be the last one? Abortion rights are under assault,” editorial, Jan. 21)
I have seen the results of “back-alley” abortions, where the patients were sent to acute-care hospitals after their procedures to “clean up” if possible.
What folks need to realize is women will get abortions at any cost. My plea is that the ability to choose remain viable and legal for women, and that Roe vs. Wade remain intact.
I am aware of the ideological tilt of this Supreme Court, but my hope is that the justices do not forget their job is to protect the Constitution and not let their own personal beliefs interfere.
I applaud Carla Hall for her editorial.
Monica Weisbrich, Los Angeles
To the editor: Hall’s editorial is the usual all-or-nothing pitch by abortion proponents. It is disingenuous to continue to push for second- and even third-trimester abortions considering all the progress in scientific knowledge of fetal development.
A 2021 Associated Press poll showed that only 34% of Americans support allowing most abortions after 12 weeks. After almost 50 years, people still believe in protections for a developing fetus after the first trimester.
In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute’s own statistics showed that only about 8% of all abortions were for reasons such as fetal abnormality, rape or to save the mother’s life.
Roe vs. Wade will never garner more support from independent voters like me until the Court allows abortions after the first trimester — about 10% of all abortions — to be outlawed.
Mary Curtius, Coronado
To the editor: When the Supremes have their way with Roe vs. Wade — as they shall — what happens next?
Will red states generously fund child care? Invest money to make all public schools excellent? Support paid family leave? Provide state-of-the-art healthcare for people who are disabled? Make family planning free and widely available?
If yes, then bravo! You are consistent in a pro-life movement that cherishes and supports the precious life of the child and the family, not just the fetus.
But I’m not holding my breath, because that kind of support means putting your money where your mouth is.
Terry McKenzie, La Cañada Flintridge