Letters to the Editor: The Supreme Court didn’t rule against abortion. It ruled for federalism

People holding signs outside the Supreme Court
Antiabortion activists react to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade on Friday.
(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

To the editor: The best part of the recent Dobbs vs. Jackson decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is that the justices are not willing to, nor interested in, writing law. It is the job of the legislature to write the law, the executive to uphold the law and the judiciary to interpret the law. And the justices have interpreted the law. (“Roe has been overturned. Feel outraged, feel betrayed — then fight to get it back,” editorial, June 24)

We should be pleased that, on this occasion, our system worked. Some may not be pleased with this outcome, but this is why the justices have lifetime tenure.

If we want a different law, either state or federal, get your representatives and senators to stop bickering and start legislating. That is their job. If they cannot or will not do it, vote them out.


That is the democracy we have fought for.

Kevin Minihan, Los Angeles

To the editor: The June 26 front-page photo of an abortion unfolding in a dingy room at a clinic in New Mexico captures the zeitgeist: Two go in, only one comes out, and we are supposed to look the other way, pretending no right has been violated.

That clinic is emblematic of the Tarpeian Rock, the execution site of the Romans. Only this time, an innocent has been slaughtered.

Maria Elena de las Carreras, Northridge


To the editor: The apparent ignorance of federalism is appalling.

If a right is not supported by the U.S. Constitution, then it can be decided independently by each state. It’s all about jurisdiction, not public support.

The Supreme Court decision does not prohibit abortion. Now, the states are solely responsible for the enforcement of their individual judgments.

Joseph F. Paggi Jr., Pasadena