World without Roe

DAVID HEIM'S "World without Roe?" (Aug. 9) was a bit cavalier. If Roe v. Wade goes down, there will be endless battles in Congress and state legislatures over the extent to which male solons will allow women freedom of conscience. Also, poor and young women will likely find choice inaccessible in "red" states and away from cities.

One can agree with Heim that the need for abortion can and should be reduced through comprehensive sexuality education, better access to contraceptives (including morning-after pills), universal health insurance, prosecution of predatory or abusive males, etc. But there is simply no way of getting around the question, "Who chooses, the individual woman or Big Brother government?" This is especially so as the Judeo-Christian scriptures neither mention nor condemn abortion and as modern neuroscience shows that the functions of personhood are not possible until after 28-32 weeks of gestation--a view that fits nicely with the idea that persons are "created in the image of God," which has nothing to do with flesh, bone, DNA or beating hearts.

Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty, Silver Spring, Md.

Heim tells of the Democrats for Life organization, which proposes a plan to "reduce the number of abortions by 95 percent in ten years" and which is "focused not on overturning Roe or on criminalizing abortion but on funding day care, encouraging adoption, requiring health insurance companies to cover pregnancy, fully funding the federal WIC nutrition program for mothers and infants, and expanding access to contraception."

In your dreams!

Pauline P. Meek

Clay Center, Kan.

I enjoyed and admired Heim's bravely nuanced approach to a topic that doesn't well tolerate nuance. I especially appreciated the calm critique of what others might more polemically characterize as classical liberalism's twin idolatry of freedom of choice and absolute rights--a characterization I otherwise gladly endorse. Additionally, in projecting "a liberal pro-life movement," Heim demonstrates that Christian moral thought can be practical even as it operates from an independent basis and set of criteria that outstrip the ossified conventions of liberal vs. conservative politics.

Timothy Polk

St. Paul, Minn.

Heim attempted to construct the notion of a positive and desirable social milieu if and when Roe is overturned. Such conjecture is unnecessary and misleading. I lived in the world without Roe. It was nothing like his conjecture.

If Roe is overturned, there will be no "forging of a new coalition" on behalf of the poor and vulnerable. If our society were going to forge such a coalition, why in the world would it not be functioning in full force today? It will be the young girl impregnated through rape, the girl impregnated by her father or brother, the woman whose life is endangered by a pregnancy, the dependent wife whose life becomes unbearable at the prospect of a sixth or seventh child in as many years, who will surfer. In the world before Roe, it was the poor and vulnerable who suffered; those with enough money and the right connections got safe abortions. Why would we even consider turning back to that?

Marilyn S. Daniel

Versailles, Ky.

Does Heim think a woman who gives up her right to have an abortion should feel better because it makes a male liberal thinker less burdened with upholding her right? Does he think the comfort of liberal thinkers is as important as a woman who needs an abortion because of incest, rape or unplanned pregnancy? Does it occur to him that his concern with the intellectual difficulties of upholding Roe v. Wade sounds like a man saying: "I do not want to deal with women's issues on their terms"?

Does he think it is accurate to suggest that a woman now has an absolute right to an abortion on demand when Roe v. Wade regulates abortion in the third trimester? When Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey allows state governments to regulate abortion with requirements such as 1) that a woman be given state-provided information concerning her decision 24 hours before the abortion is per formed, 2) that a minor seeking an abortion is required to obtain the informed consent of one parent or guardian with an option of judicial bypass, 3) that facilities providing abortion services must keep records of these events for state inspection?

Does he think access to abortion services will improve by loss of Roe v. Wade when federal funding is already limited to cases of incest, rape and saving the life of the mother? When women in the military or Peace Corps, on Indian reservations or in poverty cannot get abortion services through government-funded agencies? Does he consider that reversal of Roe v. Wade would be tantamount to overturning the liberation of women from their subordination to men? Or does he think that a woman's control of her own body is not essential to women's equality with men? As a longtime reader and subscriber, I am appalled at your insensitivity to women faced with the need for an abortion.