To the editor:

Much has been said against the Aug. 2 amendment, mostly that it will ban abortions. It does not ban abortio ns. It would restore to state legislators, whom we elect, the authority to enact regulations regarding abortion. The 2019 Supreme Court ruling presumably made existing state regulations unconstitutional. Two such laws have already been struck down — one setting abortion clinic health and safety standards and one banning dismemberment abortions. Think about that word: dismemberment. It means exactly what it says when applied to abortion.

The 2019 ruling removes our ability to further restrict the very lucrative abortion industry. In the broader context, we should think about what abortion accomplishes. My body, my choice has become the mantra of pro-abortion forces. That’s fine if we’re only talking about your body. When what you do with your body results in the death of someone else, it’s another matter entirely. The technology that allows us to get very detailed looks into the womb reveals another person. Do we want to be a people that accept the dismemberment of that person? Without passage of the amendment we cannot prevent that from continuing, as courts have already demonstrated. There are, of course, other situations the abortion industry likes to throw around — rape, incest, etc. — but we should remember the adage “hard cases make bad law.” We should not allow the free-for-all regarding abortion to continue just because there is a relatively small number of hard cases that we will have to work out.

Nancy Reitz,

Eudora