To the editor: Reading your editorial on states passing flagrantly unconstitutional antiabortion laws, I thought that for one to have a voice regarding abortion, he or she must meet some simple requirements.
First and foremost, you must be female. You should also have adopted a child or be raising one that is the product of rape. You must also be mentally, physically and financially capable of raising a child (just for the basics, it costs more than $230,000).
A child needs to be loved and nurtured, and yet anyone of questionable character or mental capacity can freely produce offspring. So, who ends up suffering in the long run?
Unless antiabortion advocates — including judges, politicians and activists — meet at least one of the criteria above, they should politely keep their opinions to themselves.
Patty Easton, Los Angeles
To the editor: Bowers vs. Hardwick, Lawrence vs. Texas — why doesn’t the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board cite these cases and acknowledge the elephant in the room in the Roe vs. Wade debate?
Simple: Then readers would know that their precious “constitutional right” to an abortion can be overturned by a single vote by an unelected federal court. If Bowers wasn’t “settled law” (it was overturned by Lawrence), then Roe vs. Wade is also vulnerable.
I have no problem with California’s pro-abortion amendment or any other state’s constitutional legislation that allows abortion. The legislative process provides a measure of protection for the rights of the citizens in those states.
But I will continue to fight for Roe to be overturned, because judicial overreach is a true hazard to the republic.
David Pohlod, Oak Park