Newspapers Publish Editorials, Opinion Pieces Responding To 35th Anniversary Of Roe V. Wade

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 23 Jan 2008 - 8:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

Several newspapers recently published opinion pieces in response to the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Tuesday. Summaries appear below.

Editorials

• Los Angeles Times: The "precedent set by Roe is more threatened now than ever," a Times editorial says, adding that Roe has "created a now well-established right that would cause severe upheaval if it were overturned." According to the Times, a "return to the days when states were free to ban abortion would be disastrous and deadly," and statewide bans "would lead to back-alley procedures by desperate women, who would die needlessly because politicians shut down clean and safe clinics" (Los Angeles Times, 1/22).
  
  
• USA Today: The "most basic truth" is that more than 30 years of debate over Roe "have done virtually nothing to change public opinion" on abortion, a USA Today editorial says. "For all the protests launched, lawsuits mounted, laws championed and violence committed to stop abortions, the vast majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe," the editorial says. "Continuing the progress toward making abortion safer and increasingly rare would be the healthiest choice for American women," the editorial concludes (USA Today, 1/22).

Opinion Pieces

• Christine Link, Akron Beacon-Journal: Few voters will consider that "women's equality" is what is "really at stake in the abortion question" because the "connection between reproductive rights and gender equality" has been "lost in the political wrangling" over abortion rights, Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, writes in an opinion piece. The timing of "important advances" for women over the last 35 years is not "serendipitous," Link writes, adding, "At the core of women's equality is the ability to control whether and when we have children." She concludes that "political, economic and social life of our democracy depends" on "ensuring women's equality" in part through access to reproductive health care, including abortion (Link, Akron Beacon-Journal, 1/17).
  
  
• Frances Kissling/Kate Michelman, Los Angeles Times: "If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground," there needs to be a "genuine discussion" about the challenges the movement faces, Kissling, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, and Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and author of "Protecting the Right to Choose," write in a Times opinion piece. They add, "Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed from 1973" (Kissling/Michelman, Los Angeles Times, 1/22).
  
  
• Jill Hopke, Miami Herald: The "future of a woman's fundamental right to make medical decisions regarding her body is uncertain" after "seven years of ... attacks on reproductive health," Hopke, a writer for the Progressive Media Project, writes in a Herald opinion piece. The presidential election this year "will prove pivotal to reproductive freedom" in the U.S., according to Hopke. "Now is the time to advance access to comprehensive reproductive health services" in the U.S., she writes, concluding, "Anything less will be a blow to women's equality" (Hopke, Miami Herald, 1/18).
  
  
• Liz McCloskey and Peter Leibold, Washington Post: The "assumption of abortion opponents is that anyone serious about his or her desire to see an end to abortion will vote for the 'pro-life' candidate" in the 2008 presidential election, but there is "rarely a candidate ... that embodies the consistent ethic of life that would make casting a truly pro-life vote a simple straightforward choice," McCloskey, a doctoral candidate at the Catholic University of America, and Leibold, former general counsel of the Catholic Health Association, write in a Post opinion piece. "If the Democratic Party could adopt a much less disdainful, more welcoming, perhaps even 'pro-choice' stance ... we would be much less squeamish about supporting its candidates," McCloskey and Leibold write (McCloskey/Leibold, Washington Post, 1/22).
  
  
• Cal Thomas, Washington Times: The "cost" of Roe has been to "increase our moral deficit," syndicated columnist Thomas writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Thomas, the "social restructuring" that accompanied Roe has "created a cultural fissure that remains today." Thomas adds that 35 years of legalized abortion "has diminished and corrupted us all," adding that the "moral courage" to ban the procedure is needed (Thomas, Washington Times, 1/18).
  
  
• Darla St. Martin, USA Today: The decline in abortions in the U.S. "is not about a lack of access to abortion, but indicates that attitudes toward abortion might have substantially changed," Martin, co-executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. "Much of the change can be attributed to pro-life educational efforts about abortion and fetal development, as well as legislative efforts to give women information before they make this life-and-death decision," Martin writes. She adds that the effect of Roe has been "abortion for any reason -- even as a method of birth control" (Martin, USA Today, 1/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.