Abortion

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.

I say the following as someone who supports the pro-life position. Harassing individuals who are pro-choice and particularly their children is outrageous. It is unequivocally wrong to target Todd Stave through fliers comparing him to Nazis; advertising his private phone number; and doing so where he lives and where his daughter goes to school. Pro-life organizations who are unwilling to vociferously denounce these tactics are an embarrassment to the pro-life cause. On the other hand, The Sun didn't report how Mr. Stave is fighting back.

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.

Thank you for writing the article shining a light on anti-choice people who harass and humiliate people and their families who are not breaking any laws ("Abortion fight widens," May 11). To think that these people would go to a man's middle-school aged daughter's school to defame the girl and her family because the girl's dad rents space to abortion providers is deplorable. These anti-choice fanatics should get a taste of their own medicine by receiving calls and visits to their neighborhoods and schools.

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.

I find Sy Steinberg's letter to the editor ("Protesters rewarded for disruptive behavior," March 29) about the settlement given abortion protesters to be very disturbing. Mr. Steinberg writes that "the protesters are inciting the public, who are entitled to be free of a bunch of grotesque signs. " This statement implies that we, the public, have a right to be free of free speech. That is a very dangerous attitude and our right to free speech should be cherished whether or not we agree with the speaker.

John G. Edgemere's letter criticizing Rick Santorum for opposing abortion while being hawkish about the military is ridiculous ("Santorum's moral relativism should do well in S. Carolina," Jan. 17). If it's a matter of hypocrisy, then those who oppose war and the death penalty while championing the right to abort a fetus are just as hypocritical. There are only two "pure" stances one can take on these issues: Either one is pro-abortion, pro-death penalty and accepts the necessity of some wars, or one is against all of them.

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.

In all due respect to Archbishop O'Brien ("In Md., abortion neither safe nor rare," Readers respond, Sept. 12), I am a senior citizen who remembers when women, many of whom were victims of rape, abuse and violence were often abandoned by the men who impregnated them. In desperation, they were subjected to back alley butchers who often left them to die. The alternative of course would have been dependable birth control for women. This unfortunately was almost unheard of at that time.

The article "Law, order, free speech" (March 25) prompts this response: What is distressing to this reader is that a group of religious fanatics who oppose abortion are awarded (by a federal Judge) a "settlement" of $385,000 for their despicable behavior. Admittedly, the police behaved badly, but what are they to do when they become frustrated by the outrageous action of so-called peaceful protesters waving intimidating signs that infringe upon the rights of citizens merely driving along a heavily traveled highway?

The Germantown clinic featured in today's story, “ Maryland abortion protest target takes fight to protesters ,” has been a focal point of the abortion debate over the past few years. Dr. LeRoy Carhartarrived there in late 2010. That year, Nebraska had banned abortions after 20 weeks. Carhart, who performs both early- and late-term abortions, still lives in Nebraska and travels to Maryland to work at the Germantown clinic. Michael Martelli, director of the Maryland Coalition for Life, said Carhart's arrival in Maryland was a “catalyst for the … rising up and unity” of many groups that oppose abortion.

The fliers first showed up in March, dropped on doorsteps of the big homes in Todd Stave's quiet cul-de-sac. They compared him to a Nazi. Two months later and 50 miles away, new anti-abortion leaflets appeared in another peaceful suburban subdivision, this time in Baltimore County. They had the same bloody images. But now, they targeted Stave's in-laws, asking neighbors to pray for the family and to call or visit their home. Protesters had also showed up at his daughter's middle school.

ON THE SITE... Maryland abortion protest target takes fight to protesters : The owner of a Germantown office rented to a doctor who performs abortions  has responded to protesters with an offensive of his own, gathering volunteers to call abortion protesters at home. Obama could boost same-sex marriage cause in Maryland :  Advocates trying to uphold Maryland's same-sex marriage law hope President Barack Obama's new stance will boost their efforts.  Opponents played down the significance of the president's position backing same-sex marriage.

Anti-abortion advocates will gather at 10 a.m. Monday outside the Maryland State Police Headquarters in Pikesville to publicly discuss a $385,000 settlement involving both parties. The activists and their attorneys will discuss details of the case, which they say include a requirement that all state troopers receive additional training. The activists' federal lawsuit was over the August 2008 arrests of 18 protesters with Baltimore-based Defend Life during a Bel Air rally.

I find Sy Steinberg's letter to the editor ("Protesters rewarded for disruptive behavior," March 29) about the settlement given abortion protesters to be very disturbing. Mr. Steinberg writes that "the protesters are inciting the public, who are entitled to be free of a bunch of grotesque signs. " This statement implies that we, the public, have a right to be free of free speech. That is a very dangerous attitude and our right to free speech should be cherished whether or not we agree with the speaker.

My 16-year career in two legislatures (eight in the Maryland General Assembly and eight in Congress) included many debates on the most divisive issues of our time: Capital punishment, affirmative action, war and peace, impeachment, entitlement reform and abortion rights were guaranteed to generate partisan strife and emotional debate. No issue generated more emotion than a woman's right to choose. Intense, emotional debates produced a unique lexicon, as legislators debated the merits and implications of "judicial bypass," "parental consent," "partial birth" and the many complexities attendant to Medicaid (taxpayer)

The Sun's argument regarding the amendment banning the funding of abortions from government-backed healthcare is fatally flawed ('The anti-choice," Nov. 10). The comparison between an abortion and a gall bladder or kidney stone procedure assumes that a fetus is an infected organ or an abnormal collection of calcium. Rather, a fetus is the first stage in human life. Regardless of one's religious views, it is an undeniable fact that the heart starts beating around 22 days after conception and stops beating when the body dies.

Republicans in Congress, including Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, would require a woman's accountant — or perhaps an agent of the Internal Revenue Service — to be informed of the circumstances necessitating an abortion. Even when paying for the abortion with her own money, a woman would have to prove to her CPA or the IRS that she was the victim of rape or incest. Otherwise, she would have to forget about deducting the cost of the abortion as a medical expense. "Women who paid for an abortion using money saved in health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts would have to report the amount as taxable income, except in cases of rape or incest, or if the woman's life would be in danger," a website for accountants reported last week, after a vote by the House Ways and Means Committee.

I want to thank The Sun for running on page one last Sunday the story about the abortion protesters' arrest in Harford County in 2008 ("State trooper wanted protesters to 'rot,'" March 24). We have many freedoms being eroded daily by misguided police officials and other public servants who are supposed to protect us and our freedoms. Freedom of speech is precious. Freedom from being offended isn't in our Constitution. Police personnel and all public servants need to remember that they are servants and protectors of the citizens.

The article "Law, order, free speech" (March 25) prompts this response: What is distressing to this reader is that a group of religious fanatics who oppose abortion are awarded (by a federal Judge) a "settlement" of $385,000 for their despicable behavior. Admittedly, the police behaved badly, but what are they to do when they become frustrated by the outrageous action of so-called peaceful protesters waving intimidating signs that infringe upon the rights of citizens merely driving along a heavily traveled highway?