072980 Response to Mr. Yochim's stupid notion that "cutting back on abortion funds for poor women is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice."
To the Editor:
Like many others whose letters have appeared in Public Opinion columns, Charles Yochim (HS 7/26/80) believes that "cutting back on abortion funds for poor women is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice." He admits to being "increasingly angered and annoyed by the constant stream of letters ""from those "who consider themselves the conscience of the world." These latter, he says, should "be struck down," an opinion that is shared by many pro-abortionists.
Now that feticide has been legalized, they look forward to the legalization of infanticide, mercy killing, and euthanasia. Like Mr. Yochim, many are hoping to free to strike down those who disagree with the group that happens to be in power at the moment.
In the court's majority decision of June 30, 1980, Associate Justice Potter Stewart made it clear that the freedom of women to procure an abortion has not been disturbed. He went on to note that because killing their preborn children is still legal, it does not follow that the costs involved must come from federal tax sources. Women are free to ask for funds from organizations such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW. So long as no federal monies are used, these organizations may pay the abortionists$ fees.
That pro-lifers are not lacking in concern for pregnant women is tangibly evident by their support of Birthright organizations (In southern Westchester-423 6666). These organizations provide the emotional support and the material needs to those who elect to carry their children to term. Pro-lifers know there is no medical reason that necessitates the killing of the children. Doctors and psychiatrists who certify that an abortion is medically necessary are trifling with the truth in an effort to gain access to public funds.
Pro-abortionists, or pro-choicers as they prefer to be called, can offer no proof to substantiate their claim that the zygote or fetus is not a human being. As human beings, the preborns have an "unalienable" civil right to have their lives protected even at public expense. It is obvious that in cases of contraceptive failure and in rape and incest, the intrauterine children have committed no crime warranting the death penalty. In cases of rape and incest, it makes no sense to kill the children when it is their fathers who have committed the crime.
No group, not even the U.S. Supreme Court, can grant to women the right to kill their children either before or after their birth. Women already have the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant. The choice, to be effective, must be made before, not after, fertilization has taken place.
Contrary to Mr. Yochim's statement, abortion has inherent religious and moral overtones that cannot be ignored; it most certainly is also a political issue. Hence, the candidates of each party must take a stand. In addition, any group that follows the stipulated procedure may legally form a party. Whether establishing a right-to-life party was a wise path to follow is open to discussion. Most pro-lifers are of the opinion that working within the two-party system is more effective. History seems to confirm that the bark of third parties is usually worse that their bite.
It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will, on its own volition, admit that it erred in classifying the unborn as not human in the full sense.
To nullify the 1973 decision the Congress must prepare a Human Life Amendment or 34 state legislatures must formally demand that a Constitutional Convention be called for the specific purpose of preparing a suitable human life amendment. To be effective the amendment prepared by the Congress or through the Constitutional Convention must be approved by the legislatures of 38 of the 50 states.
The pro-abortionists are fond of announcing that polls show that a majority of the electorate supports their stand. If they really believed this, they would long ago have allowed an amendment to be prepared and submitted to the state legislatures. Their obstructionist tactics and expenditure of large sums of money indicates that they know that an amendment favoring life would pass.
Keep publishing letters submitted by pro-abortionists because they reveal to intelligent readers the weaknesses of their position. In a sense their letters help the pro-life cause as much as do these written by pro-lifers. Isannual killing 1.3M children who are innocent of all wrong-doing really a humane way to solve a troublesome personal and societal problem?
Patrick H. McHugh