Save 75% - Only $49.99 for 1 full year! digitalPLUS subscription offer ends 12/1

Columbia Flier opinion pages didn't include pro-choice response to abortion column [Letter]

I was frankly "flabbergasted" (and I haven't used that word in a long time!) when I viewed the opinion pages of the March 7 Columbia Flier. I counted nine letters in support of Ms. Maria Santo's extremely anti-abortion letter which appeared in the Feb. 28 edition of the Flier.  And how many letters taking the opposing pro-choice view appeared in the opinion pages of the March 7 Flier? None!  Zilch! Nada!  Imagine that!

I'm left to assume that either 1) the editors at the Flier are "cherry-picking" the letters to the editor to push a particular bias or agenda on the abortion issue;  2) Pro-choice supporters do not write letters to the editor; or 3) There are no pro-choice folks that read the Columbia Flier. Taking these options in reverse order, # 3 doesn't seem possible to me, and #2 doesn't seem too likely either.  It seems to me that leaves only option # 1. By only publishing one side of this complex and divisive issue, the editors at the Flier are doing their readers a great disservice.  For any open and informative debate, you have to allow both sides to speak!

I do not support Ms, Santo's anti-abortion views. We have had a law in place for four decades now, Rowe vs Wade, which protects a pregnant woman's right to decide what she does with her own body. It should be up to her whether or not she carries a fetus to term. It is a women's health issue. If the anti-abortion side could free themselves from the shackles of their religious biases, they might be able to see that this is a fundamental right for all women. With Rowe vs Wade, the Supreme Court in its wisdom empowered women to make their own choices when it comes to this most personal of decisions.

Leave Rowe vs Wade alone !

Michael E. Britt

Columbia

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Comments
Loading