Various takes on Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade reversal

Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, saving children or states’ rights [“Twists and turns over Roe v. Wade,” Letters, July 3]. It is about bodily autonomy.

If the child I gave birth to and raised needed a kidney transplant for which I am a perfect match, no one can force me to donate my kidney to save my child’s life. I cannot be subjected to surgery against my will because of the right to govern my own body. Having a uterus does not mean I exist for the specific framework of growing a new human. I am more than that.

When we focus on pregnancy-related issues such as ectopic births, miscarriages and rape, we leave room to say abortion is allowed in certain situations. Yet circumstances don’t matter. We have the right to control what happens to our bodies — even at the cost of another’s life. Upon death, organs cannot save another life unless the possible donor allows it before death. Even in death, we have rights.

If we agree that life begins at conception, it changes nothing. We have the right to decide what happens to our bodies. The Supreme Court ruling has taken away this right. We are supposed to have bodily autonomy. We no longer do.

 — Amanda Nethaway,  Westhampton

The Supreme Court should not become a political pawn. While women have been coming forward to reveal the horrors and denigration of sexual abuse, they are now in the throes of a new wave of sexual harassment — overturning Roe. It is each woman’s inalienable right to determine what goes on in her body. To paraphrase a potent statement: When good people do nothing, evil triumphs.

Unless we vocalize and make our presence felt and heard, women will be coming forward in the future to reveal this new level of abuse. If politics was so concerned with life, it would have curbed gun laws and banned automatic weapons.

 — Holly Gordon, Bay Shore

A reader believes that when a baby takes its first breath it is then considered a living human. Try telling that to the millions of parents who see their sonograms with a moving fetus. Women do have a choice. They have the choice to have sex, knowing that any birth control may fail, leading to a pregnancy.

 — Christine Sallah, Bay Shore

Just wondering how much thought had gone into the care and upbringing of all the babies that will be born to mothers who don’t want them and cannot afford them. Many will not be adopted into loving homes. Will these children face neglect, hunger, abuse? Will their education be provided for? Who will be around to care for these unwanted children to make sure they have loving families with all their needs taken care of?

 — Linda Silverman, Queens Village

Despite one’s feelings about former President Donald Trump, you can’t claim you were blindsided by the court’s decision. Trump showed us, early and often, his thought process on racial matters, the pandemic, his scheme to remain in office, the continuing scams seeking money from his followers and more. He was twice impeached. Can you say he didn’t inform us about reversing Roe v. Wade?

All three of his Supreme Court appointees may have misled Americans about their intentions, but are you surprised? The Supreme Court ruled against voting rights, and how many cared? Some 44% of women voted for Trump in 2020, a gain of 5% from 2016, after seeing four years of him in office, so they knew what he was.

Women deserve bodily autonomy, but the fanaticism of this court is likely not over [“Fear more rights could be affected,” News, June 25].

 — Robert W. Mays, Freeport

 The Rev. Thomas W. Goodhue is no doubt well-meaning but incorrect when he states that “the Bible does not explicitly prohibit abortion . . . (and) an argument from silence is never a strong one” [“Don’t lie about each other on abortion,” Opinion, July 5].

As a man of God, he should be aware that the scriptures, and our Creator’s view on the sanctity of all life, are prolific in the Bible. Please read again Psalms 139:16 where God says he is aware of the fetus or embryo in a mother’s womb but especially Exodus 21:22 and 23, which describes how if a mother and/or her unborn child are killed, the one causing it is liable for the death. Both scriptures, as translated from the original Hebrew text, do not refer to a baby only after he or she is born as was stated.

 — Tom Aydinian, Queens Village

 The right and access to abortion should not depend on your ZIP code. While New York’s elected officials have worked to strengthen access to abortion and reproductive health care, there is more work to be done, especially to ensure access for those who face systemic barriers to care — Black and brown communities, people in rural areas, and those struggling to make ends meet. The U.S. Senate should take action to protect women.

 — Vincent Russell, Smithtown