Readers React: Convenience does not justify instant access to abortion. Jerry Brown gets that

Gov. Jerry Brown speaks during a news conference at his office in Sacramento on Nov. 7.
(Steve Yeater / Associated Press)

To the editor: Being an independent, I often find myself in opposition to Gov. Jerry Brown. However, I applaud his veto of a bill that would have obligated health centers on California’s public university campuses to offer pills to students that would terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks.

Columnist Robin Abcarian accuses Brown of having no common sense and being out of touch, among other things. She attempts to give some good reasons for getting quick access to such a pill — to make life easier, to prevent students from missing class, personal rights and independence.

Does anyone notice a trend here? Do Californians really think that personal convenience is solid argument for abortion?


Without question Brown has likely protected many future residents of California. Let’s hope that incoming Gov. Gavin Newsom will do the same.

Wesley Stalnaker, Valencia


To the editor: I am pro-choice and a supporter of Planned Parenthood. Still, I was appalled by the fact that “500 or so Cal State and UC students” seek medical abortions each month.

How is this possible? Has no one heard of birth control?

I also feel that Abcarian has gone off the deep end in her overwhelming support of abortion. While it is much safer than it used to be, abortion is not to be undertaken lightly.

Sandra Wolber, Granada Hills



To the editor: Abortion is not a “cherished constitutional right.” The U.S. Supreme Court found — some say it labored to find — a right to privacy, even though those words do not exist in the Constitution.

The right to privacy makes intrusive laws suspect and forms the basis of a woman’s right to choose. This extended reasoning is why it is vitally important that we vigorously defend this “right” at every juncture.

Judges who want to chip away at precedent, like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, can point to the court’s recent Janus decision that did away with 40 years of labor law supporting unions as an example of the court’s inherent ability to change the law.

In a time when the question “what could possibly happen next” seems to be asked every day, we should be afraid.

Charles Goldwasser, West Hollywood

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook