Readers write



Abortion discussions should include fetus defects

Up until this point in the discussions about abortion, I have not heard anyone mention the option of abortion when it concerns defects in the fetus, such as chromosomal defects, anencephaly and other terminal illnesses.

As a former NICU nurse and private-duty nurse of terminally ill children, I have heard many mothers cry and wish they had had an abortion rather than watch their new baby suffer and die because of a terminal defect. Some of these babies do live two or three years in constant discomfort, requiring round-the-clock nursing care.

Are these women going to be forced to have a baby like this? There should be more attention brought to this aspect.


High court’s role is to interpret laws, not make new ones

Leonard Pitts’ column, “Progress lurches backward under this Supreme Court,” (Opinion, July 3) laments that “this is the first time in history rights granted by the court have been rescinded,” referring to the recent abortion decision.

I implore Mr. Pitts and others to recognize that the role of the Supreme Court should not be to grant new rights or make new laws but rather to interpret the law when disputes arise.

Further, the Supreme Court should not focus on helping us make “progress.”

The legislative branch, not the judicial branch, holds the power to make new laws within the constraints of the Constitution.


Stop giving mass murderers the attention they crave

Once again, a disgruntled young man unleashes a hail of bullets on innocent, unsuspecting people, including children. And once again, every newspaper and news show on TV and the internet gave him his “15 minutes of fame,” which is exactly what he and killers like him want.

Let’s stop giving these evil killers the attention they crave. It would likely deter some from acting, and since most of these murderers are copycats, it should help reduce the frequency of these horrendous events.