Why abortion is different

Re “A rule that should be easy for Supreme Court to uphold,” Opinion, March 20

The dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, needs lessons in logic. He writes that it should be easy for the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the California law requiring health clinics opposed to abortion to inform women of their abortion options.

Doesn’t the law violate the religious freedom and free speech rights of those health clinics? It doesn’t, Chemerinsky claims, since federal law already obligates businesses, whether they like it or not, to post nutritional information of food, the health risks of alcohol and tobacco products and similar warnings.

But nutritional information is for everyone’s good health. Abortion is the destruction of a baby’s life and health and sometimes the mother’s emotional health as well. G.V. Climaco Brea

I toured a pregnancy center in the San Francisco Bay Area with my daughter-in-law who volunteered there.

She told me about the ultrasounds designed to develop a bond between the mother and the baby. I saw the room where clients could take baby clothes and equipment for free.

Before leaving, we talked with the nurse on staff. I asked about followup care. Do they offer family planning counseling and get their clients started on birth control?

Her response: Oh, no, the patients will just become sexually active again.

What? Really? I couldn’t believe it. That seemed totally irresponsible to me. Jeanne Kennedy Pomona

The core of Chemerinsky’s argument is that “the Legislature found that these licensed and unlicensed centers employ ‘intentionally deceptive advertising and counseling practices [that] often confuse, misinform, and even intimidate.’ ”

In other words: Women are too dumb to think for themselves, so they need a sign making sure they know about other services. Nice message.

That pesky 1st Amendment is just a minor annoyance in Chemerinsky’s universe. David Pohlod Oak Park