To the editors:
Regarding “The 14th amendment must protect the life of the fetus”, by Erika Bachiochi (Opinion guest essay, July 2):
I have to dispute Ms. Bachiochi’s insistence on naming an embryo or fetus as an “unborn child.” Pregnancy begins with a small cluster of undifferentiated cells that are not, in fact, a child. The anti-choice movement calls it a child because it is essential to their argument. But calling it that doesn’t make it that way.
In time, that small cluster will certainly have grown into an unborn child. Somewhere on the continuum of fetal development, it is fair to say that it has become a person. That moment of personality may be hard to define, but Roe at least made the effort.
Given the enormous consequences for the mother, it is important that we give her the right to choose her own well-being over that which is not yet an unborn child for a certain period of time.
Deborah Taylor
Santa Cruz, California.
To the editors:
Here’s a question for Erika Bachiochi. You are a nurse in a hospital and the fire alarm is going off. In the corridor on the right is an incubator with five embryos. In the hallway to the left is a room with a week-old child. You only have one hallway down. Which one do you choose?
If you believe that we become a person at the moment of conception, then of course you choose to save the embryos. But would you?
Richard Ambron
Great Neck, New York
To the editors:
I couldn’t help but shake my head reading this essay by conservative Catholic jurist Erika Bachiochi.
About 11.6 million children — most children of color — live in poverty. At the same time as much as 13 million children living in “food insecure” homes; that is, they and the other members of their family do not have enough to eat every day. These are living, breathing children with hopes, dreams and urgent daily needs.
I can only wonder how the hell a rational, caring person can spend their days feasting on the rights of the “unborn” when there are already far too many hungry, needy children in the United States, let alone in this world.
Ken Cuthbertson
Kingston, Ontario
Senator Cornyn: Defending the Court’s EPA Ruling
To the editors:
In “The Supreme Court has made it even harder to fight climate change(editors, Sunday Review, July 3), the editors described the ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency as “a blow to both the public interest and democracy.”
This argument hinges on the idea that Congress has given agencies unchecked authority to govern because they are experts on topics too complicated for citizens and lawmakers to understand. Nonsense.
Agencies were established to administer and enforce federal laws. Period of time. They are not omniscient, and they are not blameless.
The subject matter experts manning these desks are important cogs in the machine, but they aren’t — and shouldn’t be — the ones pulling the handles. Self-government depends on the will of the people, and that will is realized through legislation, not regulation.
Agencies are subject to the same set of checks and balances as the rest of our government. A Supreme Court decision judged unfavorably by climate activists isn’t a blow to democracy — it’s proof that our government is functioning properly.
John Cornyn
Austin, Texas
The writer is a Republican senator from Texas.
Doctor’s Advice: Mr. President, Please Stop Cycling
Clinical practice and caution dictate that a patient being treated with Eliquis should minimize avoidable risks of head trauma due to its anticoagulant effect.
I strongly advise President Biden to stop cycling because of this risk, should he fall and hit his head. Fortunately, Mr. Biden didn’t hit his head when he recently fell off his bike. A bicycle helmet is not fully effective protection against intracranial hemorrhage after a fall.
Lawrence Inra
New York
The writer is a cardiologist at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital.
The West must take tougher action against Russia
To the editors:
The West has avoided a guilty conscience by its cowardly half measures to support Ukraine against Russia’s atrocities.
If it wants to leave the fighting to Ukraine, the West should at least introduce really tough sanctions against the Russian army and the Russian people (to undermine their support for Vladimir Putin) and give Ukraine all weapons, such as airplanes, surface-to-air missile defense systems and heavy artillery, which it needs to match the resources of the Russian army.
The West has spoken openly about not wanting to “provoke” or “embarrass” Putin. That has given him the green light (as has limited aid from the West) to do whatever he wants to defeat Ukraine and has reassured China, North Korea, Iran and others that they can intimidate the West. The West must seize this opportunity to weaken Russia and embarrass Mr Putin, as an example to our other adversaries.
The leaders and diplomats of the West need training in dealing with bullies and their bluffs.
Ron Kurtz
Alpharetta, Ge.