Letters to the Editor

Supreme Court’s recent ruling on abortion lacks basic logic

Reagan Barklage of St. Louis, center, and other anti-abortion activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 27, 2016, as the justices struck down the strict Texas anti-abortion restriction law known as HB2.
Reagan Barklage of St. Louis, center, and other anti-abortion activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 27, 2016, as the justices struck down the strict Texas anti-abortion restriction law known as HB2. Associated Press

I grieve that our Supreme Court ruled that our federal Constitution is violated when women seeking a pre-viability abortion suffer an undue burden if they have to travel a distance to a clinic to kill their baby.

Nowhere in the Constitution can a clause or reference be found that was violated by a law requiring abortion clinics to have hospital-grade facilities or use doctors with admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. When abortion was illegal, was the Constitution misread or misunderstood?

Was it an undue burden for our mothers to live nine months while pregnant to give us life?

What is pre-viable? Does the definition change when another miracle preemie at 21 weeks survives? What is viable? Would a newborn survive if the baby’s mother neglected to feed her child? Living on one’s own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.

Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother’s womb.

Perhaps the Supreme Court members would be well-advised to review the basics of logic.

Genevieve Czech, San Luis Obispo

  Comments