LETTERS: Readers respond to anti-abortion letter
Anti-abortion letter was packed with mistruths
In the July 14, 2022, issue, a reader submitted a terribly ill-informed letter concerning abortions. I would like to correct their gross ignorance.
Most women do not have deep regret over their decision — in fact, according to the 5-Year Turnaway study following the lives of 667 women, 99% of them felt that getting abortion was the right choice five years later.
Access to abortion is a key component of reproductive healthcare. It is no more the "killing of a little life" than anyone's choice to not donate a kidney or blood is. Fetuses should not get special rights to use another person's body without their consent. The government can't force parents to give their children blood or organs after they're born, and it shouldn't be able to force mothers to give the fetus their uterus before it's born. Period.
Support for abortion has been the majority opinion for as long as Pew Research has been conducting polls (32 years). Sixty-one percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in all/most cases versus 37% in favor of bans in all/most cases.
If anyone witnesses an abortion, it would most likely be taking a pill that induces a miscarriage (54% of abortions). If most people witnessed brain surgery, they would be similarly horrified, but that is not a reason to ban a practice.
Planned Parenthood absolutely does free and low-cost ultrasounds. This is a simple Google search to find and betrays the ignorance and laziness of the original writer.
If women who cannot have children want them, they can adopt from the 117,000 children who are eligible for adoption in foster care. Don't force other women to be your unwilling surrogates because you don't want those children.
Thank you for listening to me correct blatant disinformation that was published by Pamplin Media, and shame on the editorial team for platforming such blatant disinformation with no correction or disclaimer.
Christian Robinson, Hillsboro
Correcting the record on abortion
I need to correct the "facts" that Anne Christian claims in her opinion piece about abortion in the July 14 issue of the News-Times.
Ms. Christian does not give her information sources. In contrast, I will cite reputable sources, which can all be found online by searching key words.
Over 95% of women who have had an abortion state that it was the right decision for them, according to a landmark comprehensive study conducted by the University of California in San Francisco (UCSF) in 2020. This study contradicts Ms. Christian's claim that "most women who have had an abortion have deep regret and remorse."
The researchers at UCSF also found no evidence that women began to regret their decisions as years passed.
While having an abortion can arouse a complex mixture of positive and negative emotions, leading medical and health organizations such as the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Public Health Association have rebutted claims that it is common to experience long-lasting detrimental emotional and psychological effects after having an abortion.
Abortions are not on the decline in America, contradicting Ms. Christian's claim. A study from the Guttmacher Institute released in June 2022, which presents the most comprehensive data on abortion provision the United States, shows that there were 8% more abortions in 2020 than in 2017.
Planned Parenthood does allow ultrasounds in their clinics, contrary to Ms. Christian's claims. Planned Parenthood's website states that they provide free or low-cost ultrasounds, and women who have visited Planned Parenthood for abortion services and who have told their stories publicly confirm this fact.
Thank you for reading these facts that you probably will not hear if you do not follow recent professional research sources.
Lorely French, Forest Grove
Betsy Johnson's spiel is hypocritical
It seems that Betsy Johnson's call for "individual responsibility" means for everyone else, but not for her.
After she caused an accident in 2013, she claimed legislative immunity and tried to get the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
Many countries and 43 states, including Oregon, have some form of this law, but it was never meant to shield our elected leaders from the consequences of their actions. The purpose, and I find this highly questionable anyway, is as follows:
This immunity protects legislators from punitive executive or judicial action. The intent is to allow lawmakers to work independently and unimpeded by the threat of intervention from the other branches of government in the discharge of their legislative duties.
No class of people should be exempt from following the law. Especially ones that make the laws.
David Pauli, Forest Grove
Waiting for attorney general to act
It's sounding like the Department of Justice will not be holding the leaders of the insurrection accountable.
Thinking back to the last campaign debates for president and vice president, there was a lot of concern about which candidate could lead the defense of our democracy, and at first, the idea of appointing the judge that Sen. Mitch McConnell had stolen — a professor of anti-trade — seemed wonderful.
It seems like it is time to check in and follow up on this appointment discussion, though. It is great that President Joe Biden is not directing the DOJ and is careful not to influence the department like the former guy. However, the DOJ may need some help and support from some other branches of government to effectively enforce the laws we have and ultimately defend our democracy, if we still have one.
Alden John Snow, Gales Creek
You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts. Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.