In response to Peter Bramsen and columnist Brenda Zlystra’s objections to ID&E; (“Partial Birth Abortion”): I understand they both object to the medical choice to use this method. I also understand it isn’t against the ban to use the method on a dead fetus. However, depending on the local politicians and police and hospital administrators, the pragmatic result of the 5-4 Supreme Court decision will be to further limit options rather than risk prosecution. Personally, I wouldn’t want to interfere with private decisions.

Bramsen and Zlystra also made more broad statements against abortion. I admit that there is a moral issue involved that is more complicated than saying “it is none of your business”, but letting women & their families & doctors make private decisions privately is a way in which our culture can attempt to achieve better equity. There is no way to make it a society decision (laws) instead of an individual or family decision without sexual and/or class discrimination. Barring medical emergency, the rich can do as they wish. When things go wrong, women/girls and poor families are more vulnerable to harm than men/boys and families with more resources. Reproductive choice is the necessary compromise if you believe women should have the same rights as men, and laws that apply equally to the rich and the poor. I would rather risk that a few of the roughly 1.5 percent late term abortions are morally repugnant than accept laws that codify women and the poor as second class citizens.

Julie Watkins

University Employee