Abortion

Advertisements praising Maryland's new gun control law will appear on Baltimore-area televisions soon after the measure is signed Thursday - the first volley in a two-pronged effort to defend the legislation and the politicians who voted for it. The gun control advocates behind the ads want to bolster support among Maryland voters in case there's a referendum next year. But they also want to counter a campaign to oust lawmakers who backed the bill in the General Assembly. "We know that the other side will be attacking the legislators who voted for it, and we want people to know those legislators were doing the right thing to save lives in Maryland," said Vincent DeMarco, president of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence.

There are flagrant, undefined loopholes in Maryland's abortion law. That's what letter writer Jeffrey D. Meister, director of administration and legislation for Maryland Right to Life, would have us think ("Maryland has de factor abortion on demand," May 17). What do "health" and a minor's "best interests" mean under Maryland's abortion law? Their plain meaning is derived from an ordinary understanding of the words, most often found in a dictionary. That's the analysis favored by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Congrats to Christopher Dreisbach on his thoughtful presentation of the logical and ethical considerations necessary to the anti-abortion argument ("Abortion ethics not so simple," Aug. 28). What gets my blood boiling though, is that he apparently misses the same "elephant in the room" that Rep. Todd Akin missed. Mr. Akin jumped right from the punishment of the rapist to the punishment of "another innocent victim" - meaning the fetus. What both he and Mr. Dreisbach missed was the woman in the middle.

I read with interest Del. Samuel I. "Sandy" Rosenberg's critique of Marta Mossburg's interpretation of abortion law ("Mossburg wrong on Md. abortion law," May 9). Though the lawyer-politician has great knowledge and experience in many areas of Maryland law, his interpretation is not accurate here. In objecting to Ms. Mossburg's statement, "Abortion is virtually available on demand throughout a pregnancy," Mr. Rosenberg cites the specific abortion statute, noting that abortion is legally permissible when "necessary to protect the life or health of the woman or if the fetus is affected by genetic defect or severe deformity or abnormality.

Susan Reimer 's column abut the Republican platform on abortion again shows her expertise in setting up a straw man and then knocking him down ("Presidential election or abortion referendum?" Aug. 27). The Republican platform comprises about 45 pages and sets forth the Republican Party's proposals for every major issue that confronts America both domestically and internationally. Sanctity of life is only one of its more than 100 proposals. Yet in Ms. Reimer's biased and myopic view, the Republican platform concerns only abortion and does not deal with other important election issues.

I was happy to see the hundreds of thousands of people pack the National Mall in Washington D.C. Monday in support of the human rights of the unborn. In recent years the Supreme Court has short-circuited the democratic system by eliminating the most contentious moral issues — like marriage and abortion — from the public square and deciding them unilaterally from the court itself. In 1963, on Good Friday, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from the Birmingham jail, wrote that a just law is a man-made law that comports with the natural law or the law of God. Roe v. Wade is an example of a man-made law that violates the natural law. Everyone, including President Obama, knows that a human embryo is a human being.

Moral clarity is one of the most seductive traits of social conservatism. Those of us outside that ideology may struggle to untie the Gordian knot of complex moral issues, may wrestle conscience in hopes of compromise, may construct arguments in tenuous terms of, "If this, then that, but if the other thing, then ... " Social conservatives countenance no such irresolution. On issue after issue -- same-sex marriage, gun control, Muslim rights -- they fly straight as a bullet to their final conclusion, usually distillable to the width of a bumper sticker.

Diana Schaub's recent commentary missed the facts ("Abortion and population," Jan. 23). To blame Baltimore's population decline on abortion is misleading at best. It is a broad statement that fails to deeply consider the varied reasons women choose to terminate a pregnancy. Ms. Schaub writes that "In 1970, Baltimore City abortion rates for single white and black women stood at 7.43 and 10, respectively. " Yet, the Supreme Court decision did not occur until 1973. Ms. Schaub continues by citing an increase in the abortion rate in Baltimore that grew to 86.2 by 2005.

Here's a hint for those who choose to make a public show of their compassion for the unborn: It undercuts your argument when you characterize as "intellectually dishonest child-killers" the majority of your fellow citizens who disagree with you on the faith-based issue of when "personhood" begins. Gordon Livingston Columbia

T his past July, I was happily pregnant and eagerly expecting the arrival of our second child. For nearly eight months, I had been loving my baby in utero and explaining to our 2 1/2 -year old son that he was going to become a big brother. Never in my worst nightmare did I imagine I would need to have an abortion - and certainly not late term. At my 28-week sonogram, the ventricles in our baby's brain measured a little elevated, and I was sent for further testing. Two weeks later, I had an MRI, and my worst nightmare was realized - we learned the baby was missing a main piece of its brain.

Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, the fact remains that if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, she will find a way to do it ("After Gosnell, Md. should rethink late-term abortion," May 8). Filthy, unethical "clinics," such as the one run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, are becoming more commonplace, unfortunately, as local legislatures continue to pass laws that make running a legal clinic just about impossible. That, coupled with so-called "prayer groups" harassing clinics and threats to the doctors' lives and lives of their families are making even early abortions hard to get and resulting in desperate women turning to places like Dr. Gosnell's.

To those who support "choice" at all costs: Read the grand jury report on Kermit Gosnell. He is the Philadelphia abortion doctor awaiting a verdict in his trial, where he is accused of murdering four babies allegedly born alive and killing 41-year-old refugee Karnamaya Mongar. The charges represent only a fraction of the horrors that went on at the Women's Medical Society clinic, according to the report, where hundreds of children died by "snipping" - his term for sticking scissors into the back of a baby's neck and cutting its spinal cord - and where women were routinely butchered in late-term abortions by untrained medical staff and doped up according to how much they could pay. Here are some lowlights from the report: •"A nineteen-year-old girl was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus.

In regard to The Sun's editorial on Kermit Gosnell, you should be ashamed of yourselves ("Kermit Gosnell and the 'liberal media,'" April 16). Blaming the alleged murder of seven children on the fact that women don't have access to birth control and comprehensive sex education is ludicrous. Doesn't anyone need to take responsibility for their actions anymore? Since when don't women have access to birth control? Last time I checked, condoms are available in every pharmacy. Planned Parenthood - note the word, planned - helps women with their reproductive choices.

If abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell is found guilty of homicide, he will be unique among murderers-for-hire: He set his fees based on weight. "The bigger the baby, the more he charged," a grand jury explained. It recommended he be charged with eight counts of murder -- one patient, seven babies. Despite what amounted to a blackout at many media outlets until last week, you've probably now heard at least some of the details. According to the grand jury report, Dr. Gosnell's Philadelphia "clinic" was a filthy abattoir.

The murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion provider, entered its fifth week today riding a peculiar media firestorm. The focus of much attention in recent days was not on Dr. Gosnell, who is charged in the death of seven babies and an adult patient who died of an overdose, but on a claim that the trial is getting modest coverage in the national media - allegedly because of a liberal bias. Whether sufficient coverage has been given to the trial we would leave for others to judge.

Of course, I agree with The Sun's general comments in the editorial regarding the Johns Hopkins Student Government Association's overturning of the decision to deny recognition to Voice for Life, a pro-life group ("Hopkins students get it right, at last," April 11). However, your spin on the story, where you claim that young women fear that they could be harassed by this group, is typically outrageous. You further state that any challenge to abortion rights is a personal affront to young women and their control over their bodies.

In his op-ed column of Jan. 25, Thomas Schaller itemizes acts of violence by the right ( "More evidence of violence on the right" . Apparently he denies that the left deserves equal scorn. Really? What about the extremely violent deaths inflicted by liberals on millions of unborn babies? These killings far overshadow the comparatively few killings committed by conservatives. Furthermore, while killings committed by conservatives are condemned by the vast majority of right-wingers, those committed by left-wingers are supported and condoned by the vast majority of leftists.

So, if I understood her correctly, St. Mary's College History Professor Christine Adams is saying that if the truth be known women value "jobs" over parenting, and the fulfillment of such values is just not possible if women are not in control of their bodies ("For women, reproductive rights are economic issues," Sept. 18). Control, in her opinion, is that women must have the sole elective right to terminate their pregnancies to avoid being discriminated against and bullied by societal laws and mores.

The bright young people in student government at the Johns Hopkins University no doubt pride themselves on their openness to a diversity of views and their commitment to the free exchange of ideas. That's why the school's Student Government Association's Judiciary Committee was right to overturn the student Senate's decision to deny official recognition to a student-led anti-abortion group. It's on just such contentious issues as abortion that vigorous public discussion and a healthy respect for the views of others are most needed, and we hope that's the lesson Hopkins' student government will ultimately draw from this imbroglio.

Anti-abortion activists at the Johns Hopkins University who had fought to form an official club have been fully recognized, clearing the way for them to use the institution's logo and raise cash on campus. The university announced Wednesday that an earlier decision by the Student Government Association to block the group, Voice for Life, was reversed by a panel of student judges. The issue has set off a storm of debate over free speech and whether anti-abortion "sidewalk counseling" constitutes harassment at the private university.