Letters to the Editor: Women in Texas who need an abortion can’t wait on the Supreme Court

Protesters hold signs including one that reads "Bans Off Our Bodies."
Abortion-rights supporters and opponents rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 1.
(Associated Press)

To the editor: For a pregnant woman in Texas who wants an abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court’s possible change of position on procedural issues is totally meaningless. For her, the clock is still running. (“The Supreme Court isn’t buying the Texas abortion law. Let’s hope they block it,” editorial, Nov. 2)

The court has had multiple opportunities to make this statement: “Unless and until this court either modifies or overrules Roe vs. Wade, that decision is the law of the United States. Since the Texas abortion law is in direct contradiction to that case’s holding, the Texas law must be stayed immediately.”

Without issuing such a statement, all the court is doing is playing games with both the rule of law and women’s constitutional rights. Texas is receiving a judicial “wink and nod,” allowing its abortion law to remain in full force and effect.


Betty Rome, Culver City


To the editor: How long can the Supreme Court duck its duty to suspend the blatantly unconstitutional Texas vigilante-justice abortion law? Probably until mid-2022, when the court is expected to rule on a Mississippi law that dramatically limits abortion rights.

Why the undue delay? Chalk it up to hard-right justices’ concerns over optics.

With the pending Mississippi case likely to generate a holding that eviscerates — or outright overturns — Roe vs. Wade, the court’s conservative majority doesn’t want to rein in a kindred red state’s effort to curtail most abortions.

That would send a decidedly discordant message in the minds of supposedly apolitical jurists. Hence their continuing disingenuous dance around Texas’ loathsome law, despite how that pernicious ploy may render them “partisan hacks.”

Edward Alston, Santa Maria


To the editor: I admire columnist Robin Abcarian for her honesty by employing the term “abortion” instead of a smokescreen expression like “women’s healthcare.” However, I am alarmed when she writes, “We have to figure out how to keep abortions accessible in some other way.” (“We can’t count on the Supreme Court to save abortion rights. We’ll have to do it ourselves,” Opinion, Oct. 31)

Abcarian misses the major point: whether or not the preborn are indeed people. Simply stated, looking for angles and loopholes to preserve abortion rights is merely playing with God’s moral universe, and it promotes nothing more than a culture of death.

Abcarian advocates for legal protection for women — but what about legal protections for preborn children? These are indeed people in need of protection.

Yes, it is sadly true that women could lose their lives due to complications from illegal abortions. However, this number isn’t anywhere near those preborn children who die each year in abortions. Explicit legal protections are needed in every state for these children.

Wesley Stalnaker, Valencia