Letters to the Editor: End of Roe vs. Wade means more poverty and coat-hanger deaths

Demonstrators -- one with "not your body" painted on her torso -- gather outside the Supreme Court.
Abortion rights demonstrators gather outside the Supreme Court May 2 after a leaked draft of an opinion overturning Roe vs. Wade was reported by Politico.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: It appears that within the next couple of months, women will be punished for unwanted pregnancies. The result will be barbaric coat-hanger abortions, expensive trips for out-of-state procedures, and the prospect of carrying the tragic results of rapes to term. (“Roe vs. Wade will be overturned, purported leaked Supreme Court draft suggests,” May 2)

For many, this will mean the end of a promising future for themselves and their children. In some cases, families that are already struggling economically will face the burden of another child they cannot provide for.

And sadly, in a country where childbirth is already a risky proposition, many more mothers will die. All this pain in the name of “right to life.”


So perhaps it is time to even the playing field. Why should men go on about their lives without consequences?

First, provide women of childbearing age with electronic chastity belts. Why not? It shouldn’t be that hard to create an electronic device that alerts the “sex police” if a woman is being raped.

Second, for repeat sex offenders, we might want to go a little farther. Castration and the garnishing of wages for life to pay for the upbringing of their children are in order.

Do I want to see my ideas played out? Of course not. But I do not propose them simply in jest. We are headed down a dangerous road.

Women deserve the right to control their own bodies. Don’t let the Supreme Court trample on our rights. Force Congress to protect women’s health. Right now the issue is abortion. What will be next?

Catherine Bell, Los Angeles



To the editor: The Supreme Court is going to make a big decision by overturning Roe vs. Wade. I see this as good thing, as the rights of a fetus will be recognized.

What will that look like? The fetus will be viewed as a child and therefore worthy of an income tax deduction for all pregnant women. This recognition will include food stamps if the host parent cannot afford food.

In the case of pregnancies from rape, DNA tests will be performed to determine who the father is.

This is going to be quite an awakening for all of us. Are we truly ready to honor the fetus?

Lillian Jenkins, Culver City


To the editor: The right to an abortion is different from other liberties that follow from the due process clause, those that protect fundamental aspects of privacy and autonomy. The biggest difference is that abortion ends a life, and all other decisions relating to autonomy and privacy do not.


In Roe vs. Wade, the majority in favor of recognizing a right to an abortion decided by fiat that human life begins when the fetus is viable, but that is not the definition that pro-lifers believe. Every one of us was once a single-cell human, and our full development within the womb was an uninterrupted continuum.

Thus, the fundamental question is whether aborting a healthy intrauterine life is a matter of parental convenience or an illegal termination of life. The issues of rape, incest and fetal abnormalities are a separate matter.

Paul Bloustein, Cincinnati


To the editor: Neither the Supreme Court nor any other government entity will ever stop abortions. Making abortion illegal will simply drive it back underground, and the women who cannot afford to travel will be butchered by amateurs. Many will die.

It is barbaric to discriminate against women this way. I am old enough to remember these atrocities.

No life is protected unless all lives are protected.

Phyllis Higgins, Los Angeles



To the editor: The Constitution was written by white men. It did not result in extending rights to women, who at the time were considered subservient to men who ruled families, churches and government. Women who strayed from male dominance were often punished.

Women had to fight for every right they have. Now a minority thinks it’s OK to take away the right to privacy and the right to choose our medical care.

These extremist justices do not represent the majority. They represent a zealous minority that wants to reverse equal rights and opportunities for women, minorities and LGBTQ people.

Jann Shaw, Porter Ranch


To the editor: For those of us old enough to remember some of the pre-Roe horror stories, it’s not difficult to imagine what setbacks are coming at us next.

Books are being banned with the rapidity of bullets from an assault rifle. Gay marriage? School segregation? Loving vs. Virginia? If you think these laws have any standing with this Supreme Court, good luck.


As if these last few years weren’t horrific enough, we now need to worry about setting our sundials before the next witch trials begin.

Marley Sims, Valley Village