Dear George,

Without question or qualification, I support a woman's right to choose, that is, to have the final authority over the reproductive use of her own body, including the right of abortion. Under the law deriving from Roe v. Wade, every adult female American citizen has the legal right to choose, by herself. No other person has the legal right even to be informed of her choice, let alone to interfere with it.

A woman's right to choose the use of her own body is one of our fundamental, inviolable constitutional rights. For me it is as sacred as the right of free speech. That the matter of choice involves a decision about (or against) abortion is important; but it is a private one made, finally, by the woman herself. Her relation to her God is a private one; equally private is her relation to her doctor. The right to choose an abortion is part of any woman¹s right to choose the disposition of her own body. It is the this legal and human right to choose which is inviolable. To interfere with this right, I understand, is legally indefensible. Politically, I call it usurpation of power, being the abridgement of a human and civil right.

The morality of abortion is, as I hold, with the law, a religious rather than secular legal matter. It is necessary to speak out in defense of this civil and human right which is every woman's, including my own.

HR 2436 might have been admirable for its humane concern for the foetus, but it erred constitutionally, I would suggest, in granting a foetus equal rights with its mother. It confuses a religious and also a moral matter of belief with, on the one hand, constitutional issues and, on the other, (the limits of) scientific knowledge. More intentionally, it is a wedge being driven into Roe v. Wade because, by granting a foetus the same rights as a living human being -- which the foetus is not -- it means to set a precedent for reducing that woman's right of choice. I would argue that "to injure or terminate a fetus when committing a crime against the mother" is already (in the logic of the law) an abridgement of the woman's right to choose, on the part of the perpetrator. (And what if the perpetrator injured or terminated the foetus and the mother with a gun? But that is another, although not unrelated, issue, isn't it.)

Obviously, I would rely on Meredith Richards' previous support of a woman's right to choose and expect her to continue it. I am opposed to Virgil Goode because of (nearly) everything he stands for, and also because I wish to see a Democratically-controlled Congress, but I appreciate his stating his positions forthrightly. I wish Meredith would do the same; perhaps she will as the campaign speeds up.

Yours,

Katherine McNamara (electronic mail, September 6, 2002)