Letters to the editor: Praise for employers who support abortion access; like a bad joke
Employers helping women deserve applause
In the June 29 article, "Area employers will help pay travel costs for employee abortion access," Elizabeth Whitmarsh of Ohio Right to Life criticized employers pledging to cover travel costs for women seeking an abortion, saying they don’t support women who choose life. What a ridiculous statement.
Health benefits for employees typically cover an array of services, including prenatal and postnatal care, birth and pediatric care for children. She, and her ilk, want you to think only they are concerned for women but it’s a lie. They care nothing for the woman who does not have the emotional, psychological or monetary resources to have and raise a child, or in many cases, another child. If they did care, they would support their freedom to choose. They would also be vocal supporters of low-cost effective contraception. But that is the next target of those who have no respect for women.
I applaud these employers who support the autonomy and dignity of their female employees. Women are now once again second-class citizens in this country. Who will be next?
Sharon McWhorter, Akron
What's next for women after court decision?
The question of when exactly life begins has been debated since time began. Good (and rational) people can disagree. How can the Supreme Court justices now discard 50 years of precedent? There has not been a recent significant event, scientific or philosophical, indicating the achievement of widespread societal consensus regarding the exact time of the dawning of personhood.
This whole situation feels like a bad April Fools' joke in that it simultaneously seems like a real (and disturbingly expected) possibility, but at the same time, doesn’t add up once you apply a realistic filter to it. For example, how will they make certain that the pregnant women engage in proper prenatal care? Where will The State find competent, trustworthy and compassionate workers to enforce their new laws? Where will they get the funding to train and employ a fleet of fetus watchers? Will The State provide long-term mental and physical benefits to the persons that they require to remain pregnant?
Roe wasn’t perfect. But it accommodated both sides as best it could. It prioritized privacy and bodily autonomy as sacrosanct. Under Roe, people were free to be either pro-choice or pro-life. Under this new ruling, there is no option, at least not in the state of Ohio.
This recent decision raises far more questions than it answers. It also discounts the role of a woman in being capable of deciding what is best for her and her body.
Tracy Reiss, Akron
This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Readers wonder what's next after Supreme Court abortion ruling
