Roe v. Wade draft provokes readers

In a leaked document, Justice Samuel Alito states the Supreme Court’s intent to overturn Roe v. Wade ["Report: Justices hint Roe overturn," News, May 3]. He argues that before legalized abortion, the states had their own laws regarding the issue. He claims that allowing the states to regulate abortion would be a return to this tradition. He cites old laws and instances, but he doesn’t talk about women and what might result -- the girl who is raped and forced to be pregnant, the struggling single mother who has other children and is barely surviving, or the young, married woman who planned a pregnancy but found out something went terribly wrong. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, 23 states could ban abortion. This is a travesty of justice and an abuse of human rights. Not only is it telling women that they aren’t fit to make their own choices, it’s telling them they don’t matter.

Elizabeth Aquino, Amityville

Some 74,000 abortions were performed in 2019 in New York State ["Gulf on LI over top court abortion draft," News, May 4]. What would have happened if abortion was illegal? Some fetuses would have been aborted illegally, risking the life and health of the mother. Some, carried to term, would have died as well, considering the high perinatal death rate in America. How many would be homeless or in foster care? How many would be neglected or abused due to the mental or physical impairments of the mother? Americans are lying to themselves that all prevented abortions would lead to happy, healthy children. Refusing to fund child care services, housing and mental health support is the epitome of hypocrisy when we condemn poor women to deliver a child into this unwelcoming society.

Mary A. Negra, Setauket

Opponents of abortion primarily focus on protecting the fetus. If women denied abortions deliver their unwanted babies, how many babies will be left to die somewhere? How many unwanted babies will be kept and abused? How many women will seek unqualified doctors or try to self-abort and die? Roe v. Wade has been on the books for nearly 50 years. Rolling it back means the possibility of many painful deaths. But proponents apparently aren't aware of the physical suffering that will be caused.

Lyn Mendelsohn, Oceanside

In "Next steps in battle" [News, May 4], it says, "A sweeping decision would invite new questions about how the nation’s highest court reflects public sentiment.” I hope that the justices interpret law and not public opinion.

Howard Ammerman, New Hyde Park

The individuals who refused to get the COVID-19 vaccination declared, “My body, my choice.” Today, the same individuals are protesting against women declaring “My body, my choice,” regarding their pro-choice stance. It's hypocrisy at its best.

Lou Werner, West Sayville

This leaked opinion, sneakily revealed before the midterm elections, is just another Democratic ploy to get an edge in their falling polls. As President Joe Biden said, "We will need more pro-choice senators" (code word Democrats) who will support women’s rights ["Biden: Ready to respond if '73 ruling struck down," News, May 4]. I’m not saying Roe v. Wade is wrong. The timing of this leak is convenient for the struggling Democratic Party, which is trying to capitalize on it.

Voters should not be steered away from the Democrats' many failures that got them to this desperate point. Clear the house of all these woke politicians and worry about a women’s rights as a separate issue.

Also, former President Donald Trump deserves no thanks for raising the abortion issue during his 2016 run for president just to garner votes from the religious right. It’s all about the votes, on both sides of the aisle.

Charles Sabbiondo, Wantagh

I am a registered Republican and opposed to abortion. With abortion pills, the ability to travel, and the likelihood of illegal (and botched) abortions, though, it is improbable that the decision will reduce the number of abortions. But the moral and the legal don’t always comport.

In 1993, the Supreme Court affirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey the fundamental right to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Casey taken together therefore represented a “super” precedent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh described the law as settled. The debate apparently was over. Abortion foes tried to convince women not to end pregnancies.

Adherence to precedent is sacred, respected by judges and lawyers. Precedents have of course been overruled. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the court held that separate but equal segregation was constitutional, but it was overturned in Brown v. the Board of Education.

The Supreme Court has an obligation to maintain its reputation. If affirmed precedents are overruled, the court risks losing the support of the people it serves.

Michael J. Butler, Greenport

The editorial "Reversing Roe won't stop fight" [Opinion, May 4] was quite good. But it said that "the right to have an abortion . . . should be balanced against the state's interest in protecting potential life." It has been established that life begins at conception. Abortion is not the taking of "potential" human life but rather the taking of existing human life.

Frank J. Russo Jr., Port Washington

Back in the mid-1800s, when public schools started, children learned about our Constitution so they could educate their parents. Now, there seems to be a general deficit in knowing and understanding checks and balances and other safeguards that our country was founded on.

While Ukraine is fighting to maintain its independence, here in the United States, democracy is slipping through our fingers -- limiting voter rights and academic freedom and banning books. Now, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, these restrictions are poised to take us backward. What is next -- women losing the right to vote?

Civics education should be a requirement for high school graduation. Maintaining our democracy needs a well-informed public who understand our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Holly Gordon, Bay Shore

Politico, which released the leaked brief, must have been aware that this never occurred before ["Roberts orders probe of leak," News, May 4]. Clearly, Politico decided that the importance of getting a big headline outweighed the potential damage that this leak would cause to the judicial process. I am concerned that nothing will happen to the self-serving people at Politico who aided and abetted this leak. Our system is melting down before our eyes.

Arthur M. Shatz, Astoria

The Republican Party has been trying to take this right away from women for nearly 50 years.They have also been making it harder for many to vote in Republican-controlled states. What's next -- banning contraception or outlawing gay marriage? If this keeps up, we won't have a democracy, and we won't have the United States that we have come to love.

Richard T. DeVito, Long Beach