In response to the letter by Louis Cascarelli ("Please support candidates opposed to abortion Nov. 3," The Daily News, Sept. 30): Low-income women should be able to have access to Planned Parenthood if they choose not to have any more children.

So, if you want to burden the poor with too many children, it's a good plan.

Defunding Planned Parenthood and denying low-income families birth control may work so the children you feel must be born may become a burden. Trump may not have built the cages on the Mexican border, but he filled them after separating them from their parents or guardians.

Do these little lives have your support?

When a pregnant woman or child seeks an abortion it's not a casual, birth control type decision. It's often a heartbreaking choice, and it's between her or her guardians to deal with and also with the curses you're certain she will receive from God.

If we, as a nation, return to a belief that forces a desperate woman or mother of a sexually abused pregnant child to carry the baby to term what resources do they have? They're poor.

Let the choice and, or curse, be theirs. Let the women who choose to get an abortion make amends. Until we find a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy, choose choice.

Virginia Stone

Galveston

Locations

Recommended for you

(35) comments

Carlos Ponce

"Until we find a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy..." There is. It's called abstinence. Rape accounts for 1% of abortions.

George Soros

teaching abstinence in schools got us in this mess carlos, abstinence is not a realistic option

Carlos Ponce

Maybe you got into a mess but abstinence was accepted by most parents. Abstinence works.

Bailey Jones

Views about abortion, like all issues that surround sex and sexuality, are usually predicated on a person's religious beliefs. As such, in a society that values religious freedom, it's best to leave it to the conscience of the individual, their partner and their clergy, if any.

There is overwhelming consensus in the US about abortion - there should be reasonable access, and reasonable limits.

Abortion isn't a problem. It's a solution to a problem. If you want to eliminate abortions - and everyone does - the answer is to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies. This requires education and access to reliable birth control. And it requires providing young women with alternatives to motherhood as means of self fulfillment. This should be a goal that everyone can agree on - yet we can't. See my first sentence.

I was happy to see the story in the paper today (UTMB awarded $1.4 million to help reduce teen pregnancies) about a scientific study of "the effectiveness of existing teen pregnancy prevention and healthy relationships programs". I hope that whatever the results of this study, the means proven to be effective will be employed in our schools and communities.

I agree with the author that overturning Roe V Wade will disproportionately affect low income women. A ruling against Roe V Wade will return the issue to the states. It will be legal in progressive states, illegal in conservative states. Women of means will travel to states where abortion is available, women without means will be left to their own solutions.

Carlos Ponce

Even pro-choice Justice Ruth did not like way Roe v Wade was adjudicated.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, if you are going to use RBG name, please include what her position was.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not like how Roe v. Wade was structured.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t really fond of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. Why was RBG not fond of Roe v. Wade, because she didn’t like how it was structured.

The ruling, she noted in a lecture at New York University in 1992, tried to do too much, too fast — it essentially made every abortion restriction in the country at the time illegal in one fell swoop — leaving it open to fierce attacks.

Of course, most eventually realized that Justice Ginsburg’s skepticism of Roe v. Wade wasn’t driven by a disapproval of abortion access at all, but by her wholehearted commitment to it.

The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality.

Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided.

Carlos Ponce

Those with knowledge will know her position. Those who desire knowledge will look it up. But many will accept what I posted.

Jim Forsythe

What i posted was from Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg. Professor Wendy Williams, spent the last 17 years interviewing Justice Ginsburg .

“She was very strategic but she was also very client-focused,” Professor Hartnett said. “She cared about people and about the real-life problems that these legal issues created. She did that as an advocate, as a judge and a justice.”

During the same term that Roe v. Wade was decided, Justice Ginsburg was preparing to appear before the court, on the other side of the bench, as a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union representing Capt. Susan Struck.

In that case, Captain Struck, an Air Force nurse who was stationed in Vietnam, had become pregnant. She was given two choices: have an abortion or leave the military (before Roe, though abortion was prohibited in most states, it was allowed on military bases).

Ginsburg, though, believed the Struck case would have provided a stronger foundation for a woman’s right to choose, and tried to see if Capt. Struck could find other instances of discrimination to keep the case alive, Professor Hartnett said.

Carlos Ponce

Struck v. Secretary of Defense never made it to the Supreme Court.

Captain Susan Struck appeared before a Board of Officers for violating Air Force Regulation 36-12 "The commission of any woman officer will be terminated with the least practical delay when it is determined that one of the conditions below exist . . . Pregnancy - A woman will be discharged from the service with the least practical delay when a determination is made by a medical officer that she is pregnant."

The Board directed that Captain Struck be discharged with an honorable discharge. The abortion option was not discussed. The Air Force Personnel Board followed through on their recommendation. Other people may have discussed abortion with Captain Struck but not the US Air Force.

Jim Forsythe

Justice Ginsburg was preparing to appear before the court, on the other side of the bench, as a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union representing Capt. Susan Struck.

Carlos Ponce

Under Air Force Regulations there was only one course of action: discharge from the service.

Jim Forsythe

No Carlos Captain Struck was not discharge from the service. As a matter of fact, RBG was the main reason the regulation changed.

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the Air Force, realizing it had a very real chance of losing, changed its policy and let Captain Struck have her child and keep her job and the court never heard the case.

“Remember, she’s client-focused. The client got what she wanted — she got the regulation change,” Professor Hartnett explained. And that was that.

Ginsburg, though, believed the Struck case would have provided a stronger foundation for a woman’s right to choose, and tried to see if Capt. Struck could find other instances of discrimination to keep the case alive, Professor Hartnett said.

Carlos Ponce

I never said she was discharged, Jim. The Air Force recommenced discharge but with legal intervention she gave birth to a baby girl on December 3, 1970. The "girl" should now be 49 years old. What is an error is that she was given a choice to have an abortion to remain in the service. That was not an option available for the infraction. Susan Struck did not return to active service until December 1, 1972. She was not pregnant at the time of her return to active duty.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, the only thing you posted was " there was only one course of action: discharge from the service." If the only action was discharge, then you did post that she was discharged ,since no other action was available according to you.

You did not say that RBG was able to convince the service to change the regulations.

“Remember, she’s client-focused. The client got what she wanted — she got the regulation change,” Professor Hartnett explained. And that was that.

Your first post stated the "Justice Ruth did not like way Roe v Wade was adjudicated." which is not true .

What is true, is that RBG worked for women's rights.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, FALSE. I NEVER Posted she was discharged. What did I post?

I quoted Air Force Regulations.

"Air Force Regulation 36-12 "The commission of any woman officer will be terminated with the least practical delay when it is determined that one of the conditions below exist . . . Pregnancy - A woman will be discharged from the service with the least practical delay when a determination is made by a medical officer that she is pregnant." Now that's NOT me, that's the United States Air Force.

And I posted the Air Force Board's actions:

"The Board directed that Captain Struck be discharged with an honorable discharge." Now that's not me, that's the United States Air Force Board's action.

And that was the ONLY course of action they gave, hence " there was only one course of action: discharge from the service". But JIM posted "She was given two choices: have an abortion or leave the military (before Roe, though abortion was prohibited in most states, it was allowed on military bases)." And they NEVER gave her "two choices". They NEVER told her "have an abortion". That is a fabrication - a LIE.

Jim Forsythe

This is what you said, "Under Air Force Regulations there was only one course of action: discharge from the service."

The only choice that you posted was discharge from the service..

Carlos Ponce

That was the ONLY thing the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COULD OFFER. You INSISTED they gave her a choice that included ABORTION.

ABORTION WAS NEVER MENTIONED but Jim Forsythe said it was!!!!!!

Read the case summary!!!!!!

Jim Forsythe

Struck choice, have a ABORTION or be discharged by Air force rules.

Carlos, this is what the rule was in 1970

"Air force rules then were as clear as they were coercive: face immediate discharge unless the pregnancy was terminated. Keep your job or keep the pregnancy."

The air force put Struck on the first transport out of Vietnam. She was sent back to the states, to Washington, where the discharge notices started coming – seven in total.

“One thing that conspicuously distinguishes women from men is that only women become pregnant,” Ginsburg said at her confirmation hearings in 1993. “And if you subject a woman to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of her pregnant status, which was what was happening to Captain Struck, you would be denying her equal treatment under the law.

“It was her right to decide either way, her right to decide whether or not to bear a child,” Ginsburg said. “In this case, it was her case for childbirth. The government was inhibiting that choice. It came at the price of remaining in the service.”

I (RBG) wrote a petition to the supreme court to hear her case, the supreme court said, ‘Yes, we’ll take it.’”

The government’s top attorney, the US solicitor general, Erwin Griswold, told military top brass, “This case has loss potential for the government,” according to Ginsburg. “‘You should waive Captain Struck’s discharge and then change the rule prospectively so pregnancy is no longer an automatic discharge.’ And the air force did.”

Carlos Ponce

"Air force rules then were as clear as they were coercive: face immediate discharge unless the pregnancy was terminated. Keep your job or keep the pregnancy."

FALSE!!!!!!!

Why aren't you looking up the Case, Jim???????

Captain Susan R. STRUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.SECRETARY OF DEFENSE et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Here's the REAL AIR FORCE REGULATION:

Air Force Regulation 36-12.

The commission of any woman officer will be terminated with the least practical delay when it is determined that one of the conditions in a or b below exist

a. Pregnancy:

(1) General:

(a) A woman will be discharged from the service with the least practical delay when a determination is made by a medical officer that she is pregnant

b. Minor Children:

(1) General. The commission of any woman officer will be terminated with the least practical delay when it is established that she:

(d) Has given birth to a living child while in a commissioner officer status.

What you are quoting is from the guardian.com, NOT Air Force Rules. The regulations NEVER mention abortion.

LOOK IT UP!

Jim Forsythe

Carlos below is what you asked for. I only included the points that talked about Captain Struck and the Religion clauses and abortions.

460 F. 2d 1372 - Struck v. Secretary of Defense

27. Captain Struck asserts that Air Force Regulations deny to her her First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion. She points to Part I, C of 1971 Amendments to the Regulations, which Amendment says "Discharge Action will be cancelled if Pregnancy is Terminated." She says that abortion, as one method of terminating the discharge proceedings against her, was not available to her because she was a Roman Catholic and her religious convictions did not permit her to have an abortion. No doubt many female soldiers would not resort to abortion because they think it is, or should be a criminal act, but in their cases, no Constitutional problem would be involved.

28 The answer to the question of whether a statute or other public regulation or action constitutes an interference with the Free Exercise of Religion, or an Establishment of Religion, is, and for decades has been, one of the most elusive in our law. Chief Justice Burger, in the case of Walz v. Tax Commissioner, 397 U.S. 664, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1969), elaborated the subtleties and difficulties of the problem. He discussed Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S. Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), and other cases. He said:

29 Each value judgment under the Religion clauses must therefore turn on whether particular acts in question are intended to * * * interfere with religious beliefs and practices or have the effect of doing so.

30 In our instant case it is not claimed nor could it be claimed that the Military, in drafting and amending Regulation 36-12 intended to discriminate against female soldiers whose religious principles forbade abortions. But the Chief Justice's last clause in the quoted statement "or have the effect of doing so" requires consideration. In Sherbert v. Verner, supra, Mr. Justice Brennan recognized that the mere fact that government action would or might have some tendency to affect adversely the Free Exercise of Religion did not close the inquiry. The opinion said, at p. 406 of 374 U.S. 398, at p. 1795 of 83 S.Ct.:

31 We must next consider whether some compelling state interest enforced in the eligibility provisions of the South Carolina statute justifies the substantial infringement of the appellant's First Amendment right. It is basic that no showing merely of a rational relationship to some colorable state interest would suffice in this highly sensitive constitutional area.

32 The Military, in legislating on the subject of what to do about pregnant female soldiers, was dealing with a "compelling" public interest, the importance of which we have discussed hereinabove. But the Military also had to deal with the subject of terminated pregnancies. The termination of the pregnancy would terminate the disability, and the discharge of the soldier would be a wasteful loss of training and experience. So the Military said that the termination of pregnancy should terminate the discharge proceedings. But Captain Struck says that this rule about the termination of pregnancy discriminates against her because it sets her apart from other female soldiers not affected by religious principles. The Military, if that problem had occurred to it, might well have thought that if it exempted Roman Catholics, and perhaps members of other religions, the principles of which forbade abortions, it would be chargeable with a violation of the No Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. This aspect of the problem is presented at length in the separate opinions of three Justices in Sherbert v. Verner, supra.

Carlos Ponce

"She points to Part I, C of 1971 Amendments to the Regulations"

1971, 1971, 1971 GET IT, JIM???????

She was pregnant in 1970 and gave birth to a daughter on December 3, 1970

They could not have imposed a regulation that was not in place at the time of her pregnancy. The rule on that section you cite DID NOT EXIST in 1970.

But thank you for providing evidence to prove my point.[beam]

Jim Forsythe

The above ruling is what changed the rules of 1970. It takes awhile to go thru the court system and this case was no different.

Charles Douglas

Wow! Sounds like the author of this Op-ed is trying to convince others to think like those who believes in abortion, infanticide, and BLACK GENOCIDE, on the cool! In my opinion there is no excuse for Over 300,000 thousands BLACK babies being slaughtered in this country every year, just like it is no excuse for BLACK young men to be slaughtered on the streets of Democratic controlled cities by the tens of thousands every year!

These kinds of fatalities, are not occurring in other demographics at these kinds of numbers! Now these are the FACTS! If the LEFT want to do something constructive, then stop craving the BLACK vote, and improve our schools, and quality of education in America, and the POVERTY rate will go down. One problem drives another Here!

The truth is the LEFT profits off of BLACK poverty, and Ghetto cities and atrocious schools and education facilities! They play games with Black emotions by keeping SLAVERY and Confederate Names and statues on the front burners, especially when elections are near!

We never hear anything from the LEFT about improving minority education ....Why? We know Why! Minorities get to smart they will walk off the plantation and start thinking for themselves! Then there goes their votes with them! BLACK women might quit stocking grocery store shelves so Joe Biden can stay quarantined in his bunker!

He did say he has BLACK Women stocking shelves so he could function, his words not mine! Deuteronomy 30: 19 states, " This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live!" This is the TRUTH, the Word of God! It is plain as the none on a man's face!

It is about LIFE! Everybody is not going to start out rich or prosperous, some of us are going to start out being.poor facilitated by the decisions others might have made which effected us, but that is not enough to commit murder, ABORTION, or infanticide! I have never read where a man had to stay poor! However, as the author of this Op-ed stated, we all have a choice, and as God Also indicated in his WORD above, and other places in the word, there will be.consequences and repercussions for those choices ...natural, and spiritual!

Charles Douglas

I'm glad Mr. CASCARELLI bought the subject up when he did! It seems the LEFT would rather keep a Bordella open in these troubling times that to allow Christians to go to church! Kicking little kids out of virtual classes because when asked who was a role model, a little kid say Donald Trump! The teacher tore him a new behind, and cut him off the feed. The teacher later lied about what he did until he founf out the boy's mom was recording it all! Is this what it is coming to in this nation? Looting, burning, killing, telling people how to think and what to say, what t9 wear, eat and drive? Using government to spy on private American citizens! Is this what we can expect from HARRIS & JOE? Sounds like Communism to me, but that's just me!

George Soros

Where are you sources for such definitive statements? I would love to see, with evidence, how the left profits from poverty

Gary Miller

Rape is no reason to seek an abortion. The child is innocent, punish the rapist. Choice actually has nothing to do with the abortion industry. It's about reducing the black population. Already working? The black population isn't producing enough births to replace annual deaths. White abortions are a cover up for black abortions. Equaling less than 10 % of white births they have no influence on white populations.

Republican opposition to abortion, based mostly on religious beliefs, has stalled the democrat plan to erase black Americans by a generation.

Ted Gillis

Unless you are the one that impregnated the individual seeking the abortion, then I’d say you have very little voice in the matter. Even then it would be just your voice. The actual choice should only be up to the individual that is hopping up on the procedure table. The rest of you can go pound sand, or type your eloquently worded opinions in the comments section, which I see a handful of you already have.

Carlos Ponce

"Unless you are the one that impregnated the individual seeking the abortion, then I’d say you have very little voice in the matter."

Your position, Ted. The Lord commands us to speak for the innocent who who never given a chance.

If you saw someone mistreated it seems like you would walk away - "Not my problem!" That's not very Christian.

Gary Miller

I would like the government to publish the number of black births, black deaths, black abortions each year. Making it obvious PP is assisting black Democrats in performing genocide on the black American race.

Larry Grissom

Actually it’s not always a heart breaking choice. I met a woman who had 16. For her? My tax dollars supported her choice of birth control. Full term babies ? Deserve to live.

If low income woman need access to abortion due to poor choices or accidents? Use my tax dollars to give them a hysterectomy.

Ted Gillis

No Carlos, if I saw someone being mistreated I would stop and assist them, however I would not barge into a procedure room to stop them from having an abortion. And there’s nothing Christian about it. I would help a person regardless of their religion.

Larry, 16 abortions? really? Where did you find this person? That’s an unusually high statistic.

Hardly credible for this argument. I find that using those types of fantastical claims (credible or not) distorts the point you are trying to make. It would be like the guy who’s property tax went up 6,000 percent, so the only good response is to eliminate all taxes. No, the response is to fix that guy’s tax mistake.

Carlos Ponce

Only words, Ted. To stand by and say nothing while millions have been killed is abhorrent.

Bill Cochrane

I wonder why no women are posting?

Bailey Jones

I hope you're not suggesting that women have a say in this!

Charles Douglas

A certain woman just got a political spanking at the debates tonight!

[angry][angry]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.