To the editor: He did it again! In addition to his role in rejecting a plea to strike down affirmative action, Justice Anthony Kennedy has joined the rational side of the Supreme Court to rule against Texas’ restrictions on abortion, and in so doing he has highlighted the importance of moderation in critical thought. (“Supreme Court strengthens right to abortion, strikes down Texas restrictions on clinics,” June 27)
Hopefully antiabortion activists will take this opportunity to focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Colorado offers a good example of how prevention programs result in less unwanted pregnancies.
Since 2009, the state has offered intrauterine devices and implants to teenagers and poor women. The birth rate among these populations declined by 40% between 2009 and 2013.
Berta Graciano-Buchman, Beverly Hills
To the editor: Monday’s ruling was widely hailed as a “victory for women,” to quote likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. I don’t see how this could be anything but a major defeat.
The Texas law that was struck down mandated common-sense safety rules for abortion clinics, in particular that they meet the same health standards as hospitals. Why is this unreasonable?
If the pro-abortion side wants to make this procedure “safe, legal and rare,” shouldn’t it have supported the Texas law, which took a significant step toward achieving at least one of those goals?
Noel D. D’Angelo, Thousand Oaks
To the editor: The GOP should consider changing to the REV. It rarely moves forward, more often in reverse.
It has spent much of the last 43 years trying to reverse Roe vs. Wade, a decision that the majority of the country is in favor of. We finally have universal healthcare, and the Republicans in Congress want to repeal that. Progressive thinking and moving forward are what made us a great country.
After all, they are going to lose to a candidate who would not have had the right to vote.
Ron Diton, Upland