New York Will Remain A Pro-Choice State, So Prop 1 Is Unnecessary

Dear Editor,

A vote of “No” on Proposition No. 1 in no way endangers access to abortion in New York state.

The claim that Proposition 1 is necessary to assure continued access to abortion is pure political fiction. Abortion will continue to be allowed in New York because of our current laws, and it is the will of the majority of our state’s citizens.

Laws governing the behavior of individuals and their relationship to society are, by our U.S. Constitution, the province of “the several states.” That’s why the repeal of Roe vs. Wade was a judicially correct decision, in accordance with the Constitution – putting the matter back into each state to control it.

In some states, the majority of voters contend that a fetus is not a human being, but a collection of cells or a growth which can be destroyed, as chosen by the woman carrying it. In these states, fetal destruction would be justified if the continued presence of the fetus were a threat to the woman’s education, career path, economic well-being, or any other appealing reason, at her discretion. This would be a “pro-choice” state.

The majority of voters in a different state may believe that (because of its unique and distinctly separate DNA, heartbeat, fingerprints, etc.) the fetus is a valid human being merely at an early stage of development, with a strong right to continued survival and development to maturity. This would be a “pro-life” state. In each state, the citizens have the right to direct their legislators to craft their laws or change their laws, and if necessary, vote out of office legislators who don’t comply with the will of the majority. This is diversity. This is democracy, a federal democracy. This is America.

With Proposition 1 having no effect on abortion rights, it must be evaluated on its other merits, such as its effect on girls’ sports and on the right of parents to make medical and surgical decisions regarding their own minor children. I find that the arguments against Proposition 1 in these areas are convincing, and I recommend a No vote on this proposition.

-Nicholas Merriam

Jefferson Valley