Editor: Lyle Denniston's Perspective article Sept. 9 claimed a national victory for pro-abortion forces because three pro-life state senators were defeated. He wrote that politicians and judges around the country will be reading Maryland's message, ''Don't mess with abortion rights,'' and few legislatures will be willing to support tough new anti-abortion laws.
What a bunch of pro-abortion hogwash. It would be like my stating that, because the Pennsylvania legislature passed the toughest abortion restriction law in the nation, every state will be following suit.
Let us put the truth on the line:
1. Pennsylvania is a pro-life state; Maryland is a pro-death state. Any abortion victory in Maryland is countered by Pennsylvania. It just shows that neighboring states have different views.
2. The only strength for abortion rights in this country can be found in the three cases of rape, incest and endangering the life of the mother. This support is growing weaker every day.
A July Time magazine poll showed 69 percent approved of a law requiring parental consent for abortion among teen-agers. In a poll taken by Parade magazine of 313,000 readers, 59 percent took a very strong pro-life position that abortion is murder.
3. The so-called ''pro-abortion victory'' in New Jersey last year was hardly a political victory. In reality, the New Jersey loser ran away from the abortion issue and lost; the pro-abortion winner is already in great troubles with the voters.
4. The only reason that states like Idaho backed away from strong anti-abortion laws is because the pro-abortion forces have great power with the press. If a state passed a strong anti-abortion law, pro-abortion forces know that the press will help them promote a boycott of that state's products.
So let us stick to the truth and avoid making these small victories greater that they really are. The Maryland victory was just as expected. As for the pro-life losers, I wish we had more politicians like them who would stand for what they believe.
Editor: I was reading Ellen Uzelac's article on obscenity (''Obscenity: Drawing The Line,'' Sept. 23) and was interested to read about the pledge artists must sign if they wish to be eligible for federal grants. Work must not include ''depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children or individuals engaged in sex acts.''
A scan of a few of my art history books revealed a number of artists who produced works that would be disqualified. To name just a few, Hieronymus Bosch (''The Garden of Earthly Delights''), Rembrandt (''The Bedstead''), Rubens (''Susannah and the Elders''), Ingres (''Ruggerio and Angelica''), Courbet (''Sleep''), Rodin (''The Eternal Idol'') and Picasso (''Etching, 1968'').
This list of major artists who produced major controversial works could go on, filling several Letters to the Editor columns.
Were these respected master artists pornographers? I think not. One of the tasks of artists is to deal with the human condition in all its aspects and, like it or not (I like it), that includes sex.
In the same edition of The Sun I read in Michael Olesker's column that our infant mortality rates ranks behind 21 other industrial nations and that about one in five U.S. children lives in poverty. Now, that's obscene.
Bias in Uniform
Editor: After reading V. Alton Barker's article about the treatment of our women soldiers in Saudi Arabia, I was fuming, not about their treatment, but by the attitude of those in charge of our armed services.
These women are soldiers, and as such deserve the same respect, rights and responsibilities as their male counterparts.
I understand the cultural differences and the desire not to offend our hosts. But we should not be condoning another culture's lack of human rights awareness by discriminating against our female personnel.
The solution to the problem is obvious and won't offend our hosts: If one soldier cannot wear shorts, all soldiers cannot wear shorts. If one soldier is required to use the back door, or the back of the bus, or the back of the theater, all soldiers must be required to do so.
As for giving our female soldiers traditional black dress in which to tour the towns or countryside, how about providing the traditional Arab dress for our male soldiers when they tour?
Rather than reinforcing the Arabs' discriminatory policies, we should be showing our solidarity by treating all of our soldiers equally.
A. M. Supik.
Editor: Personally, I am deeply concerned. In Barry Rascovar's Sept. 16 commentary, he stated that Chuck Ecker, the Republican candidate for county executive of Howard County, could not raise sufficient funds to mount a successful campaign against the incumbent, Elizabeth Bobo, because "donors are terrified that if they give to Mr. Ecker, Ms. Bobo will never forget their heresy." Is this allegation possible? Could Ms. Bobo be this vindictive or arrogant?