To the editor:

In the January 20th letter regarding House Bill 5787 to fund abortion, the writer makes a cogent and articulate case that as an equity issue abortion should be funded as part of health care for women who otherwise cannot afford them. Few would argue that women should be denied health care available for men, but the argument is far deeper than equity.

Some statements in the letter bear closer scrutiny. The claims that debating abortion itself is moot because “it is settled as a constitutional right (Roe v Wade, 1973).” With Dobbs v Jackson very much unsettled and due for a decision in June that may overturn Roe for good, this is based on a false premise, so the conclusion that debating abortion should be off the table is false as well. Roe could be following Supreme Court terrible precedent decisions like Plessy v Ferguson or Dred Scott v Sandford into the scrap bin of unjust and flawed court judgements.

One possible outcome for Dobbs is for the court to declare itself neutral on this divisive issue and that the states should decide for themselves how abortion will be regulated and should not be overridden in that responsibility by judicial fiat.

A second possible outcome is more comprehensive and far reaching. The court could find that Roe erred in a more profoundly unjust manner by denying preborn human persons' 14th Amendment due process protections that prevent them from being deprived of life, liberty, or property. At the time of Roe, most states legally recognized preborn babies as persons under both tort and criminal law as well as for financial issues such as being established as eligible for inheritance. Courts would routinely assign legal guardianship and advocacy for preborn persons in court proceedings. Roe denied preborn babies legal protection against the unjust taking of their life without legal recourse or a guardian to plead their case.

Justice Blackmun, who wrote the Roe decision, himself acknowledged that if preborn human beings were recognized as legal persons, then the 14th Amendment would prevent any laws allowing abortion from being enforced.  He went on to state in so many words that since it cannot be known when exactly life begins, life in the womb is expendable. But it is known when life begins. 

Science then as now is established that life begins at conception. The baby, while dependent on the mother for food, oxygen, and protection, is independent genetically from the start. She is a separate person. Inherent in the injustice of Roe was the edict to deny the minority group of the unborn that protection.

Settled law? Hardly. After nearly 50 years, the abortion issue was not and is not settled law as was stated by the writer. Hundreds of thousands of mostly young people still show up year after year for the annual March for Life in Washington. They refuse to accept lies as a basis for law or to live with laws that attempt to justify the unjust taking of over 60 million preborn human beings since Roe.

The debate is not whether women should have equal access to health care. The debate is whether a procedure during which fewer than half of the patients survive qualifies as health care.

Jack and Rita Parquette

Portsmouth