Letters to the editor for June 3

The Choice Should Be What Type of Prevention
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In a recent Op/Ed column, "Every Woman Should Have Reproductive Rights," Lindsey Oliver wrote that she feels "the urge to take a moment to reflect on the hundreds of women's lives we [the Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project] have directly impacted." It is fitting that a proponent of abortion should be so in tune with her natural urges, since an inability to control impulses is a primary contributor to the prevalence of abortion in our society. In the column, Oliver argues that the Hyde Amendment, which limits Medicaid coverage of abortions to rape, incest, and life endangerment, unfairly denies poor women their right to an abortion.

Oliver's argument centers on the idea that women have the right to control the size and shape of their families. Of course women should have sovereign command of their own bodies and reproductive potential. But what abortion advocates forget is that a woman's right to choose begins with the choice to engage in intercourse and should end when another life is conceived. Engaging in irresponsible sex is not a liberty guaranteed by law, but if the Hyde Amendment is repealed, that is what the federal government will be endorsing with our tax dollars.

If a woman waives her right to abstain from intercourse, she should be held responsible for the risk inherent in that decision. There are ways to dramatically reduce the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, such as the use of birth control medication and condoms. A woman's right to choose extends to these methods of family planning. When a life is conceived, however, that is a repercussion of previous decisions -- not an opportunity for choice. Regrettably, our culture has become so indulgent that we allow women to evade the consequences of their actions at the expense of human life.

Ginny Robinson.
Chesterfield.

According to Faulk, "When Souter was sitting with the president, being interviewed for the job, Souter knew he couldn't be the type of justice Bush was seeking." How can Faulk, or anyone else, possibly know what Souter was thinking at the time of his interview?

When possible Supreme Court justices are questioned in a Senate hearing, they invariably refuse to commit themselves when questioned regarding specific possible court cases, e.g., Roe v. Wade. It is assumed that every justice brings an open mind to every case brought before the court. What Faulk is saying is that a justice, far from exercising independent judgment, ought to only reflect a political party's views. In some instances, that may be true, as in the decision of the court in the 2000 election when five conservative justices in effect appointed George W. Bush president. I thought of the majority of the court in that decision as the Republican wing of the court.

As I understand the record, many of Souter's votes were with the conservative wing; others were not. What this indicates to me is that Souter was no puppet, acting only in accordance with his party, but voting his conscience or his reasoned judgment. How can that be a fault? The Supreme Court, as the court of last appeal, should always be impartial, nor should any of its decisions be preordained.

Robert A. Carter.
Richmond.

Two questions:

(1) How does Liberty University's non-recognition of the student Democratic Club reach out with compassion to even one pregnant woman contemplating abortion?

(2) When are we going to start talking about abortion as a demand problem, not a supply problem?

Stuart Nixon.
Midlothian.