Letters to the editor (12/26/13)
Late-term abortions are wrong
Our Supreme Court, in 1973, declared that women have a right to receive an abortion.
The proposed Pain Capable Child Protection ordinance for our county does not take away that right nor does it address that right at all.
What it does address is whether a business that performs painful abortions on babies after 20 weeks of gestation can do their business in our county.
Human physiology and medicine has proven that babies of at least that age have all the structures and ability to feel excruciating amounts of pain. Surgery is being increasingly done on babies still in the womb to correct abnormalities and they always use anesthesia on the baby.
Before they started using pain killers on the babies in the womb, up to 50 percent were dying of shock and pain.
We raise cattle for our family to eat. At the slaughterhouse, cattle, sheep and pigs are humanely and immediately killed. If our processing facility failed to kill in a humane and painless manner, they would be shut down by inspectors.
The death provided to these babies by late-term abortion facilities is neither quick nor painless. From 20 to 24 weeks, it usually involves removing their arms and legs by pulling and twisting them off while still in the womb and then crushing the head.
After 24 weeks, the tendons have become too strong to pull them off so they employ medicines that slowly starve the baby of sustenance and oxygen taking up to three days to die. No living creature deserves these kinds of slow, violent death.
We find this so repulsive that we are asking the county to prevent any of these businesses from coming into the county. We don’t want them here.
There is now a late-term abortion facility in Albuquerque, so this should not cause a hardship for women wanting a late term abortion.
It is easier to prevent a business from coming here than it is to shut them down.
The Valencia County Commission is considering a Pain Capable Unborn Child ordinance, modeled after the recently failed Albuquerque vote that would place a ban on abortions (in the unincorporated areas of the county)after 20 weeks’ gestation.
Nobody likes abortion.
Abortion is a personal, private medical decision.
Women in this country have the constitutionally protected right to make the very personal and private decision whether to have this medical procedure.
In America, government and elected officials have no role in anybody’s personal, private medical decisions.
In this country, voters have no role in other people’s personal, private medical decisions.
In this country, people have no right to impose their own religious beliefs on any other people.
I do not see how the County Commission can possibly make a decision to violate these basic tenets of American women’s personal, private rights, which are protected by the United States Constitution.
The Valencia County Commission held a second public comment session on Dec. 20 at in the county courthouse building on Luna Ave in Los Lunas.
I urge all residents of Valencia County who believe that local government has no business no business dictating people’s personal, private medical decisions to … speak up against this proposed ordinance.
The organized and well-funded faction arguing in favor of the ordinance is basically trying to force their own personal religious beliefs on everyone in the county.
That is distinctively un-American!
Proposed ordinance wrong
There are issues in late-term abortions and county commission beyond the popular talking points, and I am hopeful intelligence will win-out!
As a citizen in this community, it is impossible to ignore the efforts of some groups and individuals to bend human will into a permission to alter individual rights that our Constitution guarantees.
I am obviously in favor of citizens having their say; however, I am not in favor of any authority portending to change the protections offered all citizens — to please some.
Any notion existing as authority for imposing views (of customs, religious or political rules), cannot go unchallenged. Speaking up for women’s rights is not simply an exercise in citizenship, it is mandatory.
If not for them, will tall people be the darlings of the next controversy; will it be bald men or the disabled?
Deciding which rights women should endorse to appease some elected group pretending to hold sway over constituents is dictatorial. A litmus paper test is simple: the elected must work diligently and be watchful, remain unauthorized to change law alone and present proposed changes to voters.
It is popular to examine controversy in the public view, and in keeping with public notice because it exposes unseen support (backing) in the controversy.
Still, that will not satisfy the question of authority or enforcement of the decision afterwards. There is little general criticism in airing laundry for all to see; it is wrong when all of the laundry is the same size, the same color or the same style trousers.
F. Guy Glover