To the Editor:
“How to Protect Access to Abortion After Dobbs” (editorial, Nov. 16) exposes the devastating crisis of access to abortion that has resulted in pregnant people dying for lack of care and providers living under constant threat in the United States.
Yet the editorial board’s proposed solution — a national “floor” for abortion access — is deeply troubling for anyone who understands the harm caused by restrictions. A national floor creates a dangerous precedent that may create access for a select group, but keep abortion meaningfully inaccessible to many.
For years, anti-abortion politicians have proposed limits of 15, 12 and even 6 weeks. But these limits abandon people with later-term complications, health risks or pregnancies that do not fit into an arbitrary timeline. Allowing the government to dictate reproductive decisions is a dangerous surrender of health and autonomy.
Meanwhile, voters are speaking loudly at the ballot box. Measures in Missouri, Kansas, Montana, Ohio and even Florida — where a pro-reproductive freedom amendment received a majority of voters’ support but fell just short of the 60 percent needed to pass — reaffirm that abortion rights retain strong support even in ostensibly red states, signaling backing for access far beyond the first trimester.
The last three years show who suffers under restrictions: people forced to endure dangerous complications, carry nonviable pregnancies or die because timely care is denied.
This is the moment to stand firm. Partial solutions are not enough. Abortion access must be complete, unconditional and centered on the health and safety of those who need it most.”
Amelia Ayşe Zoe Letson Washington
To the Editor:
The editorial board’s assertion that abortion continues to be accessible despite the devastation caused by the Dobbs decision oversimplifies the reality of abortion care in the United States.
Increasing abortion numbers reflect the grit of advocates who continue to make abortion available, from telehealth service expansion to assistance via abortion funds. This statistic, however, does not capture the intricacies of the emotional, financial and legal challenges that burden the accessibility of basic reproductive health care.
Provision of telehealth medication abortion plays a role in bridging the accessibility gap. It isn’t, however, without legal risk to patient and provider. It’s imperative that states with abortion protections prioritize the creation of telehealth shield laws to protect providers caring for patients across state lines.
Suggesting that Congress set a federal “floor” restoring pre-Dobbs protections ignores that even under Roe, abortion access was constrained. Many states enacted restrictions under the guise of protecting patients, but they were purely legislative tactics to control the bodies of people capable of pregnancy.
Any federal action should move us forward, not return us to a system that leaves abortion access vulnerable to political manipulation. We must limit the ability of hostile states to impose their agenda at the expense of public health.
Finally, any health care discussion must use inclusive language. People of all genders deserve access to compassionate care. At a time when transgender people are being intentionally erased from health care, research and their own humanity, The Times has a duty to use its influence to ensure inclusion in conversations regarding abortion.
Tejasvi Gowda Baltimore The writer is an obstetrician-gynecologist and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health.
To the Editor:
You suggested a nationwide floor on abortions.
Here is a better idea: No laws restricting access to abortions. We don’t have laws restricting health care for broken legs, heart attacks or cancer. As long as the treatment is effective (which the pills are, as are the other abortion procedures), then people can get the treatment. They can even get off-label treatment for medications and sometimes enroll in studies to get access in advance to treatments.
Abortions are health care. The decision should be made by the pregnant woman, the doctor and the father if he is actively involved. And the health care you get should not depend on where you live.
We don’t need a law that limits this kind of care. We need no such laws.
Anne Brock Brush Prairie, Wash.
To the Editor:
Your call for a nationwide abortion standard asks for the wrong solution. Here’s the nationwide standard we in fact need: Mind your own damn business! This 86-year-old mother of three, grandmother of seven says: Leave the decision up to the woman and her physician.
Sarah McKee Charleston, S.C.
A Citizenship Test for Our Leaders
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Made the Citizenship Test Harder. What if Every American Had to Take It?,” by James Traub (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Nov. 18):
Why shouldn’t the president, the vice president, cabinet secretaries and members of Congress and the Supreme Court all take the test and have the results published?
Pop quiz. No boning up the night before. If they hold these offices, they should be able to pass easily.
Robert Larsen Rensselaer, N.Y.
The post A ‘Floor’ on Abortion Is Still a Limit appeared first on New York Times.
