Letters to the Editor: Roe vs. Wade put the Supreme Court in a ‘partisan stench.’ Overturn it

A person wearing a red costume walks outside the Supreme Court building
A pro-choice activist dressed as the title character from the novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” walks outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 4.
(Getty Images)

To the editor: Harry Litman’s column actually makes a good case why Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. (“Mississippi abortion case threatens women’s rights and the Supreme Court’s standing,” Opinion, Dec. 1)

First, we need to discard the extreme positions — those of people who reject all abortions in all cases, and those wedded to “my body, my choice,” or abortion any time, anywhere. We need to decide somewhere between conception and birth as a limit.

In 1973, Roe did this with trimesters, and in 1992, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey changed that to viability with a little “undue burden” thrown in. Now, Mississippi did not outlaw abortion, as 15 weeks is hardly draconian and is common among many of our peer nations.


So, who decides? Litman appoints the Supreme Court to decide “cases [that] drew lines grounded in medicine and roughly workable in practice.” But isn’t that the practical judgment we normally assign to the state legislatures and Congress?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor says overturning Roe will raise a “partisan stench,” but the Supreme Court has been in a partisan stench ever since Roe. I believe there is a good chance the institutionalist Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will lead a mostly united court that concludes that the only way to purge the partisan stench is to reject what created it, namely, Roe vs. Wade.

William N. Hoke, Manhattan Beach


To the editor: During Wednesday’s arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that if the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, “There’ll be different access [to abortion] in Mississippi and New York.” He seemed to think that that would be OK.

Um, Justice Kavanaugh? The last time a class of people had fewer rights in Mississippi than in New York, it didn’t end well.

Pamela Eilerson, Malibu


To the editor: There is already a long-standing legal precedent that life begins not at 15 weeks but when the child is born. That is the U.S. tax code.


Infants are only deductible from the date they are actually born. This is a long-standing precedent.

In fact, I have my father-in-law’s tax returns from 1942, and my husband was only deductible after Aug. 5, when he was born.

Judy Kleinman, Pasadena


To the editor: It seems very odd that the people who do not want the government to require them to get a vaccine or wear a mask feel that the government can demand that a woman bear a child.

If they win on Roe vs. Wade, maybe they could then be forced to wear a mask and get vaccinated or go to jail.

John Katics, Simi Valley