Roe efforts perpetuate ‘unhuman’ treatment

The May 6 editorial “End of the Roe, part II” bears some rebuttal. If all you know is what you read in the paper, then your editorialist has not been reading very deeply. There are numerous examples of exactly the things the editorial says are “getting carried away.”

If Roe is overturned, the issue will go back to the states. Already, there are several Republican candidates for attorney general in Michigan who had expressed the sentiment that cases such as Griswold V. Connecticut [which negated state restrictions on contraception by married couples] should be overturned. Missisippi Gov. Tate Reeves recently said publicly that he believes the same. Some have also questioned the finding in Loving, which invalidated miscenegation laws. It’s not a stretch to think that Obergfell [legalizing same-sex marriages] would also be in their sights. It’s also not too far fetched to think that these candidates are not the only ones who have taken this position.

Speaking of Michigan, AG candidate Matthew DePerno has stated he thinks abortion should be outlawed entirely, even in the case of a medical emergency. He’s not alone; Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano is of the same mind. If they have their way, then a problem pregnancy, ectopic, for example, becomes a death sentence for the pregnant woman. Prohibiting abortions for rape and incest victims is barbaric enough; this is beyond the pale, and deliberately cruel.

The person quoted as saying that overturning Roe would “relegate pregnant people to unhuman status” is right on. Already, we are seeing a bill in Louisiana that would charge a woman having an abortion with murder. Under that regime, any miscarriage will be seen as suspect; will discarded embryos not needed for in vitro fertilization be considered murder, too? Carried away? Perhaps not. See the recent Hernandez case in south Texas, which has been in the news recently.

The fact that more anti-abortion bills are not allowing rape or incest as exceptions to the prohibition also proves this point. Both of those crimes are heinous, violent felonies that inflict psychological and physical scars that impact the victim for years. To force the victims of those crimes to then carry their attacker’s child, and thus force on them a daily reminder of their assault, is barbaric. Bad enough a woman is a victim of a violent attacker. Must she then also be a victim of the state? How many will have their schooling, careers, lives forever disrupted because of such backward policies? Unhuman, indeed!

It’s unfortunate that a small number of Christo-fascist legislators, along with like-minded governors, can pass laws that affect the entire population, and women particularly, when polls show a majority of the populace favors choice in some form. Almost all of these legislators are Republican, a party which has historically favored small government. Getting the government off your back used to be one of their mantras. Apparently getting it into your womb is not a problem. Women who vote Republican do so at their peril.

THOMAS BECKETT Siloam Springs