Tom Cardella’s column “Using Gosnell to ban abortion,” (May 30) triggered a response from regular letter contributor Gloria C. Endres (“Afterthoughts on Gosnell,” June 6). The conversation has continued on southphillyreview.com.
Gloria, I always enjoy your intelligent letters, and I’m not going to re-litigate abortion with you because it is already settled law. We agree that family planning is preferable to abortion. The point of the column, which you dismiss, is that if you want to prevent more Gosnells from practicing their butchery on women, then don’t ban all abortions because we know what happened before abortion was legal. Nothing you wrote refutes that point.
Well, Tom, thanks for your reply and the nice words.
I fully understand your point. It has been made by others. But what you gloss over is the fact that what many women want is full control of their reproductive systems at any time during the pregnancy with no restrictions whatsoever: Abortion on demand. That is what “choice” means to them. If the law restricts that, they will find a way to do it illegally.
Only a few are demanding a ban on all abortions. The strictest bills being considered do allow for exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.
The point I was making was that we need to educate women as to what actually happens during an abortion, which is painful to the fetus at even early legal stages. Stop using euphemisms.
And to regulate and inspect strictly any doctor who performs them. Otherwise, there will always be a market for butchers like Gosnell. No matter what.
Gloria C. Endres
Send a letter to the South Philly Review at email@example.com. Please include your name, address and telephone number for verification purposes.