Readers write

ajc.com

Credit: pskinner@ajc.com

Credit: pskinner@ajc.com

Indignation should be toward justices, not leaker

Someone in the inner circle of the Supreme Court broke their trust of secrecy. The leak points toward the majority’s intent to overturn Roe vs Wade.

Hold on! Didn’t recently added conservative justices imply in their testimony under oath that they would follow the precedent of Roe vs. Wade? Why isn’t voting to overturn this ruling perjury on their parts? Do they have a special lying exemption?

Justice Barrett was an anti-abortion activist. Shouldn’t she recuse herself from participating in the opinion? Then there is Justice Thomas, whose wife is a fanatical Trump supporter -- Trump being the one who nominated his political lackeys to the Supreme Court. Do Supreme Court justices have an integrity exemption and are not subject to similar standards of the other courts in the land?

The Constitution does not deal directly or indirectly with abortion, but women deserve equal rights under the Constitution. The majority of the country supports abortion rights.

Indignation should fall to the vourt and not the leaker.

JOHN W. SHACKLETON JR., ATLANTA

Overturning Roe could push voters toward Democrats

The killing of Roe vs. Wade could turn American politics completely over. Those most wanting to stop abortion are part of the fundamentalist Christian bloc (which is only 26% of the U.S. population), and they are virtually all Republican.

If Roe is overturned, which is what they want, that will leave another large bloc of voters to drastically change things. I think the majority of that group would then vote for Democrats, negating the fundamentalist vote. It could make both the House and the Senate, in Washington and state politics, flip hard-core Democrat.

In reality, there will not be a stop to abortion; it will happen even if the pregnant girl has to fly to Ireland. And abortion is allowed, even in Catholic Ireland. At that point, all of these stupid hard-line anti-abortion laws in places like Texas would be moot.

So if they reverse Roe vs. Wade, it might not be quite what they want it to be.

RALEIGH C. PERRY, BUFORD