Texas’ heartbeat law proves effective — at doing harm
Abortion and government
Regarding “Opinion: Texas' heartbeat law has been durable and effective,” (March 30): Cynthia Allen is quite correct that the Texas heartbeat law is effective but not whether it is durable. The courts, voters and women's rights groups ultimately will decide whether the law lasts or not.
In her column, she mistakenly uses the term “pre-born children.” Of course, there is no such thing. Children are either born or not born. It is disheartening that she seems to not understand the difference between a fetus and a newborn child.
This is a common problem with those on the right on this issue. They see the fetus as a living organism while ignoring the rights of the mother who is carrying it. In their minds, it seems, the rights of the mother don't exist at all.
The fundamental question here is not whether the law is effective — it certainly is. It is effective at taking away life-changing health care choices for many women. The question is whether the law promotes the good of the people or whether it harms them.
Government needs to get out of the business of trying to regulate women's health care choices. As former President Ronald Reagan said, let's “get the government off people's backs.” Texas law puts government on the backs of women in the state. It's so wrong.
Robert L. Fischer, Houston
I found Cynthia Allen's column regarding the heartbeat law somewhat disturbing.
Her tone presupposes that the U.S. is a Protestant, Calvinist theocracy. It seems to imply that lawyer militias should be mobilized for any cause that is not addressed by legislative action. Specifically, she applauds the effectiveness of the Texas law that allows for private individuals to collect a reward for turning in scofflaws. Worse, the law permits tyranny of the sanctimonious gossips, and Allen seems to be quite comfortable with this concept. Overall, the tone of this column implies that Allen would be quite happy in a community where judgmental sanctimony trumps (pun intended) U.S. constitutional law.
James A. Babb, Friendswood