Editorial on abortion was a sensationalized stretch

Editorial on abortion wasa sensationalized stretch
EDITOR:
I have read the text of the recent Supreme Court decision. I have read of the various state and federal decisions and appeals regarding "partial birth abortion." And I read the Vindicator's How We See It column Monday. It is difficult to choose which of the many statements made in this editorial to dispute first.
Let's start with the headline: Five Justices decide they can practice law and medicine. Because Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy decided that the ban on the "dilation and extraction" method of abortion should not be overturned, we are to assume that they have pretensions to medical qualifications? Might we instead assume that they have determined that, from a legal standpoint, this procedure constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" to a sensate, viable and recognizably human fetus that might potentially, at this gestational age with modern medical and technological advances, survive and thrive if allowed "full birth" rather than "partial birth?"
Did Roberts and Alito lie about respecting legal precedent and allowing personal views to color their decisions during confirmation hearings, as the Vindicator piece not-so-subtly implied? One might argue that, in not overturning the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, precedent was respected. And if these judges are anti-abortion and pro-life, there is no evidence of this in this particular decision: they have announced, via their votes, that they uphold the constitutionality of a ban of a particular second and third-trimester procedure performed in less than 1 percent of all abortions in this country.
The writer(s) of this piece cautiously but clearly brought religion into the issue. Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church (and, no doubt, some fundamentalist Christian churches) espouse a pro-life stance. However, there are many Americans considering themselves "practicing Catholics" who are adamantly "pro-choice" as well as many supposedly "on the other side" who are "pro-life." Some have no issues with early abortion but do with late-term abortion. To state that Catholics and fundamentalists are on one side and "just about everyone else" is on the other is a gross oversimplification; one's stance may be more a reflection of personal beliefs in the "right to life" of the viable human being (in this, or perhaps all, stages) than a matter of religious affiliation.
Yes, "dilation and extraction" and "most medical procedures" are gruesome and wince-provoking when described in detail. Would today's average television viewer, however, be as sanguine about watching a procedure that has, as its primary function, the termination and removal of a theretofore live 20-week-plus gestation fetus from a uterus as they would a staged-but-realistic operation on one of the many medical dramas or the screenings of actual surgeries on various cable TV stations?
Perhaps the slant of the entire article might be questioned, the assumption that the majority Supreme Court decision not to overturn the ban on intact D & amp;E is "a step back" toward the days when "far too many women were butchered and died," pre-Roe vs. Wade. The justices upheld a ban on a very specific procedure that was presented to the court; they did not vote to ban abortion or even second and third-term abortion.
To indicate that their decision was made based upon pretensions to medical proficiency, deceit, religious affiliation (or as a first step in overturning Roe vs. Wade) and to denounce it on those terms seems a sensationalist stretch unworthy of the Vindicator.
LINDA J. KNEEN
Canfield