LETTER: Life Lessons

To the Editor: This statement is hardly the truth. The assertion made by the writers is indicative of the failure to understand the grounds set in Roe v. Wade. Point one: Roe v. Wade does not affirm the reproductive freedom of women. What is this? An affirmation of careless promiscuity? No. The two writers fall short of the truth in this case. Out of a right of privacy, Roe v. Wade asserts that a woman's request for abortion during the first trimester will be honored. Regarding the second trimester, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed a woman's right to an abortion, barring medical complications that could arise that would result in the death or injury of the mother. This is a protective measure; therefore abortion rights are not absolute in the second trimester. During the third trimester, Roe v. Wade decreed that states, if they choose, may prohibit all abortions after the fetus is considered viable. Viability is an important concept in that -- as technology augments itself -- the age of viability decreases, making any abortion after the period of viability illegal. Point two: "a mandatory 24-hour delay, mandated state-scripted propaganda, and subjecting a woman's decision to the will of her husband, are clearly an undue burden on women." Perhaps a burden, but not an undue burden. This in no way rejects Roe v. Wade. A 24-hour delay does not imply a refusal for abortion; mandated state-scripted "propaganda" does not preclude the Supreme Court decision. In fact, it is required by the Doctrine of Informed Consent that doctors present therapeutic alternatives to an elective or non-elective procedure. Tell me now, how does Planned Parenthood v. Casey thwart Roe v. Wade? Point two aside, what harm would it cause a woman to hear about the alternatives to an abortion? First of all, the term "pro-choice" implies that the woman gets to choose between an abortion and keeping the child. It should be mandatory for the doctor to give plausible alternatives, like adoption, to a woman who might hastily make a decision she will someday regret. Also, a 24-hour waiting period would allow a pregnant woman to make sure of her choice and therefore help prevent the guilt that she will feel after she commits to the abortion. Government officials should not make a woman's choice for her, but they must protect the lives of all Americans. Thus, those bureaucrats are not infringing on the woman's right to choose, but they are supporting the baby's right to live -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Many pro-choice activists say that abortion should be made illegal once a baby can live outside the mother's womb. If we venture this legal path where the majority would agree that abortions are illegal, unwanted pregnancies would still be terminated by back-alley butchers. Yes, the rich people will be able to get the safe abortion by paying a sleazy doctor enough money, but if found out, both parties will go to jail for murder. End abortion now. Treat it and call it for what it is: murder. Over 25,000,000 lives have been ended since Roe; this is a greater loss than all those who have ever died in combat. Let this year be the last anniversary for Roe v. Wade. REGAN POSTON College '95 KEVIN WELCH Engineering '95

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.