Cal Thomas' Anti-Abortion ViewsI offer this in response to...


December 26, 1992

Cal Thomas' Anti-Abortion Views

I offer this in response to a Dec. 9 op-ed column by Cal Thomas titled, "Never, Never, Never." My question to The Sun and other papers in which his column appears is why his evangelical opposition to abortion is published.

I hope to document his views by a review of op-ed pages over the past several months.

Why do you offer Mr. Thomas an almost unopposed opportunity to express his views without a pro-choice voice of some status? In the Baltimore community there are two universities that could provide such a voice.

The tit-for-tat between these groups has been going on for decades and is clearly unproductive since neither side will relent.

I believe your readers need calm, temperate statements with the reasons for choice that could be ignored if they wish by those with opposite opinions.

To support the notion that a different view is needed, I have collected some of Mr. Thomas' views, published in The Sun, beginning in April 1992.

Example: April 7, 1992, under the title "Meaningful Life," Cal Thomas wrote of the 10 days of life of an anencephalic, Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, whose parents, with the knowledge that life for her beyond a few hours or days was not possible, gave permission for the donation of her organs.

Both Mr. Thomas and a Florida judge opined that a state law prohibited organ donation until brain stem function (breathing) ceased. Ten days then passed, during which organ deterioration progressed to a degree that made transplantation impossible.

It seems amazing that Mr. Thomas and others are able to extrapolate their feelings from abortion to this situation.

George Bush was also capable of this exercise by two vetoes of a bill allowing research on brain tissue of spontaneously aborted fetuses (not the result of surgical abortions).

Thus, encouraging progress on diabetes, Alzheimer's and chorea was stymied. Bush, in typical doublespeak, stated that signing this bill would encourage others to elect to be aborted. Amazing!

Example: April 22, 1992. Mr. Thomas, incorrectly, stated that "pro-choicers seek to restrict access by women to information that could lead them to make choices other than abortion." Nothing could be further from the truth. A phone call or a visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic would suffice.

All federally funded clinics were outraged by a Reagan/Bush "gag" rule that threatened to cut off funds if the word abortion was used in the discussion of options with a patient.

This refutes the Thomas quote of April 27, when he also compared showing TV pictures of "dead babies" with those of "dead American soldiers during Vietnam, Palestinians killed by Israelis and even baby harp seals clubbed to death." Something should be done. Even the First Amendment should not allow this.

Example: Sept. 2, 1992. Under the title "Picturing Abortions for Votes," Mr. Thomas endorses an FCC ruling of the week before "that pro-life political advertisements featuring an aborted baby may be shown on television."

Incongruously, he compares such pictures with those "from Bosnia, Somalia, South Florida, Louisiana and the videos of Rodney King."

These comparisons must come from a totally distorted perception of this issue and perhaps even of life in the 20th century.

I am an obstetrician-gynecologist who has practiced through the pre-and post-Roe vs. Wade eras. Because of those experiences, I feel a deep indignation that has encouraged me to speak out for some sense, moderation and pro-choice sentiment.

William H. Brown


George Will on Gays

George F. Will's column "Straight Talk About Gays" in The Sun (Dec. 7) is anything but. In fact, it recalls the words of the great communicator: "There you go again."

The main message that Mr. Will imparts is that somehow, by teaching tolerance and understanding of gays in the early grades of school, we might influence children to "choose" a gay lifestyle.

This is preposterous, even for Mr. Will, whose slick style attempts to make us believe he supports social acceptability and is against "injustice toward homosexuals." He even claims to "affirm their human dignity," and all this as he puts forth the notion that sexuality is somehow determined through making the "right" choices.

If Mr. Will's logic were sound, how is it possible that Phyllis Schlafly has managed to produce a gay son? Surely he was subjected to all the "right" dogma that should have steered him toward the "preferred" heterosexual lifestyle.

Mr. Will and others like him will continue to believe that anything that promotes tolerance and acceptance of people who happen to be gay is somehow doing this at the expense of the "preferred" heterosexual orientation. Maybe how we get to be different wouldn't be a big concern, if our society would accept these differences and not judge them, as Mr. Will does, as either "right" or "wrong."

Thomas L. Ditty III



Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.