Letters to the Editor: How American ‘history and tradition’ explain the rollback of abortion rights

To the editor: I appreciated Aaron Tang’s op-ed article on whether a federal ban on abortion would be constitutional, and I was especially thankful he put a woman’s right to choose in the context of liberty and not just a right to abortion.

Tang points out that in last year’s Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, the conservative majority “asserted that the ‘most important historical fact’ that negated a 14th Amendment right to abortion is that many states banned abortion throughout pregnancy when that amendment was ratified in 1868.”

Of course, another important historical fact relevant to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was that women couldn’t vote and were completely disenfranchised from the political process.

And that points to the more deeply rooted “history and tradition” of humanity’s patriarchy and misogyny and the seemingly never-ending tendency to lean toward authoritarianism.

John Eaglesham, Long Beach

..

To the editor: There are far more drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration other than mifepristone that should be considered for removal from the market, as they can cause addiction, overdose and even death.

Mifepristone is not one of those drugs. Mifepristone does not cause addiction or overdose. It is not habit forming. It does not contribute to the overdose crisis in this country.

The only crisis set off by mifepristone is how easily one federal judge and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court can hand down a misguided decision that ignores medical research and science. Overturning the drug’s approval is just another step toward the demise of our democracy.

Sheryl Kinne, Van Nuys

..

To the editor: I appreciate Tang’s optimism that the federal right to an abortion is safe from the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court because a consistent and logical application of their reasoning from the prior rulings would put abortion rights based on the 5th Amendment “on firm footing.”

However, the only thing consistent about this court is its willingness to be illogical to achieve partisan gains.

We have every reason to believe this court would defy its own prior reasoning if that achieves longstanding conservative goals such as a nationwide ban on abortion.

Greg Seyranian, Redondo Beach