- - Sunday, October 6, 2019

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“Judge issues mixed ruling in abortion law challenge” (Web, Sept. 30) is biased, inaccurate and once again shows that abortionists think they should be allowed to operate without any legal constraints.

In the article, writer Denise Lavoie quotes three pro-abortion individuals but no pro-lifers for commentary on the judge’s rulings, which favored the pro-life aspects of the law. An unbiased report generally has quotes from both sides of an issue.

Ms. Lavoie reports that requiring women to have ultrasounds of their babies before aborting was the main challenge from reproductive-rights groups, according to Judge Henry Hudson. Abortuaries generally perform ultrasounds on pregnant women to determine the gestational age of the fetus, but do not show them to the mothers. Seeing her baby on the ultrasound often causes the mother to change her mind and keep her baby — which means the abortuary loses business. Thus, it is understandable that they don’t want ultrasounds to be required, but it seems only fair for the woman to be able to give informed consent to the abortion.

Rosemary Codding, founder and director of the Falls Church Healthcare Center, was quoted as saying, “We’re disappointed that our patients did not get their constitutionally protected right to accessing healthcare without legislative interferences, which they are entitled to and deserve.” But women have the right to be protected from dirty and unsanitary abortuaries and unscrupulous and incompetent abortionists, of which there are many.

CAROLYN NAUGHTON



Silver Spring, Md.

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide