120579 Karen Mulhauser, executive director of NARAL (National Abortion Action League), in a letter soliciting funds lies.

To the editor:

Karen Mulhauser, executive director of NARAL (National Abortion Action League), in a letter soliciting funds to stem the dwindling public support for abortion, alerts people to "the struggle between forces who would defend a woman's right to choose an abortion and those who would deny this right and impose their own religious beliefs instead." The judgment that the entity in utero is a human being does not come from religious sources but from the findings of biologists and fetologists. These scientists are adherents of many different sects; some profess to be agnostics or atheists.

According to Ns, Mulhauser, "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy...." She neglects to note that even before the Court's decision was rendered ardent proabortionists acknowledged that "Abortion is an intervention in the continum of life for the sake of those already living." In their minds, "The right of children to be wanted must be considered paramount in contrast to the right of the fetus to survive."

In general, RTLers do not attempt to abridge a woman's right to privacy in the bedroom. Their focus of attention arises when these bedroom actions result in fertilization, the first stage in the continuum of life. In its abortion decision the Court erred in saying that the fetus was a non-person as it erred in the Dred Scott decision saying that Blacks were chattel. The Court also neglected to note that, since the right to life is an "unalienable" right, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

Ms. Mulhauser states that "the fundamental right to privacy in medical matters is being breached" by RTLers. Though abortions are usually performed by doctors, abortion is not a medical procedure. Unfortunately, a few doctors, for a price or through a false sense of compassion, use their skills to kill rather than to cure some of their patients. They are like locksmiths who misuse their technical skills to rifle hotel safe-deposit boxes.

"This conflict is a test whether our society will protect the rights of the individual to lead her own life, free of the dictates and dogmas of others," says Ms. Mulhauser. Just imagine the chaos in New York City if each driver parked his vehicle wherever he chose, drove at the speed he wished, ignored the traffic signals and the directions of the traffic officers. Doing one's own thing results in anarchy.

Ms. Mulhauser was saddened by the House action that prohibits "the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from studying or collecting information about the 'laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to abortion....'" Since this commission assumes that the Supreme Court was acting within its jurisdiction in its ₁₉₇₃ decision, its findings and recommendations would lead not to clarification but to additional confusion.

.Ms. Mulhauser informs her readers that the pro-life forces "are now succeeding." Much of this success derives not so much from what the prolife forces do but follow from the obvious weaknesses and falsehoods that are contained in the ₁₉₇₃ decision of the Supreme Court. In addition, fair-minded people, reading letters such as the one currently being circulated by Ms. Mulhauser, detect the untruths and lack of logic contained therein and withdraw their support from the anti-life cause.

A third group that looks upon the pro--choice movement with jaundiced eyes is those women who in retrospect realize that they were exploited. They are keenly aware that in avoiding one difficulty they assumed a gnawing, life-long recurrence of the thought, "I had my baby killed."