Opinion | Fighting the Latest Efforts to Outlaw Abortion – The New York Times


Advertisement
Supported by
letters
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
To the Editor:
Re “Pills Are New Target in 50-Year Abortion Battle” (front page, April 6):
The game plan of the anti-abortion movement is falling into place. First, impose strict restrictions on the surgical procedure (think Texas and Oklahoma). Next, let the Supreme Court jettison Roe v. Wade. And now, we read that abortion pills are the new battle line, as numerous states have adopted or are considering restrictions and penalties for pill takers and pill providers.
I am convinced that, after the surgery and the pills are gone, the next target will be birth control.
Abortion opponents, determined to impose their religious views upon the country at large, will not rest until all American women can experience the joys of living in the 13th century.
William Dunham
Bryn Mawr, Pa.
To the Editor:
It’s time for a modern-day Underground Railroad to obtain self-medicated abortions. It’s time to widely advertise the availability of these pills, and explain their safety, effectiveness and cost (much cheaper than a medical abortion). You report that in 2020, 54 percent of abortions were with these pills.
Tell women how to obtain these pills from Europe, Canada and Mexico. Attempts to ban pills via the mail will be futile. We need an underground movement to counter state efforts to stop abortions.
Steve Gold
Philadelphia
To the Editor:
Re “Near-Total Ban on Abortion in Oklahoma” (news article, April 6):
The near-total ban on abortion was approved by a male-dominated legislature. Oklahoma has among the lowest percentages of female legislators in the country.
These men don’t seem to get that it takes two people to make a baby. While this law is meant to control the behavior of women, I know of no law that exerts any control over the behavior of the men who are fathering these children.
Martha Meyer
Chicago
To the Editor:
In the spring of 2005, while we were living in Tulsa, Okla., my wife became pregnant. However, our joy turned to concern and then sorrow as the fetal heartbeat slowed and eventually stopped. My wife had miscarried.
After consulting with our obstetrician, my wife decided to have a dilation and curettage procedure. We both hoped that by surgically extracting the fetal tissue rather than waiting for it to pass on its own, she would heal faster physically and psychologically.
A few weeks later, I received a letter from our insurance company, informing me that the procedure was not covered because it did not pay for abortions. My wife did not have an abortion, and she did not willingly terminate her pregnancy. After many letters and phone calls, I sorted out the situation with our insurance carrier.
However, under the bill passed by Oklahoma lawmakers, that simple insurance coding error or misunderstanding could have led to the arrest of my wife’s physician. I suspect that many innocent people, providing appropriate health care to the women of Oklahoma, will face legal consequences as a result of this legislation.
James Monk
Cleveland
To the Editor:
Re “Save Baseball by Nationalizing It,” by Matthew Walther (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, April 10):
I grew up playing Little League Baseball and, later, N.C.A.A. softball. If my children don’t play baseball, it won’t be because the game is slow or uncool. It’ll be because youth sports have become exorbitantly expensive, and as a result socioeconomically monolithic, shutting out a generation of enthusiasm and talent.
After equipment, uniforms, travel fees and hotels, youth baseball can cost families thousands of dollars per child, and that’s if they live near a baseball field — unlikely in a dense city — or have jobs that allow them to drive their children to practice. Why go through the rigmarole when kids can play football in the park?
It makes sense, then, that Major League Baseball’s fan base is overwhelmingly older and whiter even as America becomes younger and more diverse.
Baseball doesn’t have a relevance problem. It has an equity problem. To survive as the American pastime, baseball needs youth leagues that are financially, geographically and socially accessible to American kids, and professional rosters that better represent the country.
And — speaking as a girl who used to strike out the boys — involving more women and girls wouldn’t hurt.
Maddie Ulanow
Cambridge, Mass.
To the Editor:
Baseball’s future was sealed when, to maximize short-term revenues, it started broadcasting the World Series at night, too late for many young fans to watch. When you can’t watch the World Series, it becomes hard to become a die-hard fan.
Rather than nationalize, why not return the World Series to daytime? It has a better chance of saving the game.
Chris Barnum
Wilmington, Del.
To the Editor:
Re “Straight People Need Better Rules for Sex,” by Christine Emba (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, April 10):
One concerning aspect of sexual encounters raised by Ms. Emba is the use of “choking, say, or other porn-inspired violence.”
As a psychotherapist and a couples counselor, I am seeing more and more young heterosexual couples where the use of choking and other acts that are violent or degrading to women has caused a significant rift in the relationship.
One suggestion I have for young men is to ask a question three times to get a true answer. Perhaps by asking three times we create that “pause” suggested by Epictetus. It might sound like: “Is this OK? Is it really OK with you? Are you sure you want to do this?”
As a society we need to teach men how actual sex with an actual woman might differ from the hard-core porn they’ve been exposed to, and we need to educate men about what it means to bring respect, true consent and pleasure into the bedroom in a way that a woman might want.
Jennifer Wofford
Brookline, Mass.
To the Editor:
The whole species needs better mores for social intercourse. Maybe we should mainstream manners. Courtesy dignifies our own and others’ value.
Deborah Griesbach
Watertown, Conn.
To the Editor:
Re “America Is Running Out of Money to Fight Covid,” by Vivek H. Murthy and David A. Kessler (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, March 29):
The U.S. surgeon general and the chief science officer for the U.S. Covid-19 Response Team write that the federal government is running out of money to provide Americans with Covid-19 vaccines, booster shots and other supplies to address present and future risks from variants of the coronavirus. They write, “It would be a grave mistake to assume Covid-19 no longer requires our action and investment.”
As professors of health policy, we strongly agree that the risks are still substantial and likely to increase with a future variant. But our research, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, shows that the U.S. is paying Pfizer, Moderna and other major companies more than 15 times the companies’ total net costs per dose, after subtracting the billions taxpayers already paid them for developing and manufacturing them. More than 95 percent of the $23 to $25 a dose the government now pays is pure profit for executives and shareholders.
If the government paid net costs plus a 20 percent profit, it would have plenty of money to fund its Covid-19 program and would be able to greatly increase global equity access.
Donald W. Light
Joel R. Lexchin
Dr. Light is a professor at the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine. Dr. Lexchin is an emergency physician and professor emeritus at York University.
Advertisement

source


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.