Readers respond to last week’s Feedback Friday topic, which was:
Supreme Court & Abortion Law
Last week, headlines were dominated by news of the U.S. Supreme Court undergoing oral arguments of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involving the Mississippi ban on most abortions after fifteen weeks. In the arguments, the conservative justice majority has debated the merit of basing judgement on past precedents—notably Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1992 (both cases that protected reproductive rights and access to abortion)—signaling that they may allow states to ban abortion and perhaps overturn a nationwide right that has existed for nearly 50 years.
Our questions to you:
What is your opinion of abortion rights, access, and the current arguments being heard at the Supreme Court level?
Agree or disagree with the possibility of states banning abortions much earlier in pregnancy, or altogether?
Here’s what you said:
After 50 years of precedence, it is unthinkable that they would resort to overturning or weakening the law. It is totally political and I have no confidence in their decisions in the future. Over 60 percent of the American public does not support this action. Religious beliefs and politics should not be part of the Supreme Court. If they don't want to abort a child they can choose not to, however do not submit me to their beliefs. I fear for my three granddaughters.
Barbara Cook, Easton
I think everyone should have access to an abortion. What is going on today is ridiculous. I completely disagree with the possibility of states banning abortions at any point.
Nan Ridgeway, Annapolis
First, as a nation, we need to do all we can to stop unwanted pregnancies (education/contraception access). Then we need to facilitate support for adoptions and those who keep their babies but need initial extra care. We should not be proud that the USA kills the most babies of developed countries.
Debbie Yatsuk, Annapolis
Should be available to any woman at any time.
Jean Radeacker, Annapolis
Should be available to all women free of charge. Opponents are free to have unwanted children and raise them. It's up to each woman. The current opponents are guided by mis-placed religious dogma.
Eric Peltosalo, Annapolis
As a matter of law, I do not believe the Constitution gives a 'right' (even over your own body) that supersedes the rights of another's life. I am free to pursue life, liberty & happiness, but not at the cost of your life. We have an obligation to protect life. Science makes no question today that a 'fetus' has a viable life much earlier than previously thought. Life is also certainly when we feel and touch and our senses are active. We now know babies have these...
If the law is to allow such a thing, it is each states responsibility to turn it over to it's people and each states governance. NOT federal responsibility.
Also, courts today consistently hold up the rights of children against abuse, against forced religion, in favor of choosing one’s own sexuality, and still we would say that right does not extend to babies…even those born alive, but wished terminated? We must uphold life, especially in this day and these times when we have been enlightened to our past failures. If we are "woke" then let us come to understand that 'rights' extend to the unborn and further, that to profit over the extermination of a human life in any way is barbaric. Human body parts are not a commodity, are not a specimen, and are not to be trafficked in. Ever
The abortion industry continues to exploit the women they claim to help. Again, should each state determine it would allow abortions, then it should be illegal to profit from that abortion by the sale of any part of that terminated life.
To those who say it is a somber and serious personal choice: make it so. Stop allowing the sale of aborted tissue of any kind.
I do consider a life of the utmost value, but a life to be preserved.
Donna Lucas, Annapolis
First of all, I do not think this issue should be in the public arena. It is a medical procedure and should be, like all medical procedures, between the physician and the patient. That being said, I further think that abortions should not be paid for with tax-payer funds. Furthermore, if there is to be legislation it should be on the state level, not federally legislated.
Maria Museler, Annapolis
Life begins at moment of conception based on the writings of many religions. While women feel that they should have a right to their own bodies, once another human being is sharing that temple, it is the responsibility of the barer of new life to protect it, not destroy it for selfish reasons, medical reasons notwithstanding. It is my opinion that the judicial system on this matter should take their proper order and let them decide. Abortion as of this date is not a "law" and my personal morals should not be construed to mean that the decisions by the courts should go to my preference. Society and its morals are what are at play here.
Nancy Rivera, Annapolis
A small group of over the hill women (probably have had an abortion/s during their youth and now being judgmental) and some old white men should not be allowed to dictate what everyone can do with their bodies. They purport to be prolife, however, their behavior and language says something totally different! Their murderous language and gun behavior pinpoint who they really are.
B. Harrid, Crofton
I hate it that the court has become politized! When George Bush was elected by one vote from the court, I still trusted their impartiality, but this time I am doubting it. I fear our Democracy is being threatened.
Veronica Tovey, Annapolis
