READER’S EDITORIAL: FUTURE OF WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ON THE LINE IN NEXT ELECTION

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

By Ellen Holzman, Julian, California

August 27, 2018 (San Diego) - With the November election on the near horizon, it’s vital that we all understand why we must vote for Ammar Campa-Najjar for Congress: Ammar believes “women are capable of making their own choices regarding their bodies and reproduction.”

Our current Congressman [Duncan D. Hunter] is a proud co-sponsor of legislation to prohibit abortions and effectively overturn Roe v Wade. Republicans all around the country are heavily restricting access to abortion, and the Supreme Court may well overturn Roe v Wade thanks to President Trump’s nominee.

Before Roe v Wade, estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967. Clearly, making abortion illegal will not stop abortions.

The Republican model for reducing abortions in the United States won’t work. It will simply drive abortion underground again.

If you want to affect the number of abortions, then vote for Ammar Campa-Najjar. He believes, “If our goal is to achieve fewer abortions, it is important that we give women the greatest array of choices and options. All studies show that when women are given information about and access to preventative measures, abortions go down. Access to reproductive healthcare is essential for the health of women throughout my district and throughout the country.”

A vote for Ammar Campa-Najjar on November 6 will help keep abortion legal and reduce the need for them. Please register to vote today. You can check to make sure you’re registered at your current address and register online at the Registrar of Voters website: www.sdvote.com, or pick up a form at your local post office.

The opinions in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine.  To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org

 


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

Future of Women’s Health

I really agree with Ms. Holzman. To reduce abortions we must support access to affordable, reliable, safe, and legal reproductive health and education including abortions. We can’t go backward on this issue. We need people in Congress who will protect women’s right to choose.

There are so many aspects to this people don't think about.

I had a friend whose unborn baby had every organ growing on the outside of his body.  It was a baby doomed no matter what, that could not survive past birth, and my friend had diabetes that made continuing pregnancy risky for her life.  She was 7 months along when tests gave her this horrible news.  Another woman I knew had fled from a husband who beat and imprisoned her, literally nailing the windows shut.  Then she learned she was pregnant - and it was a tubal pregnancy, meaning if you don't terminate it, the Fallopian tube explodes and you could die or be left sterile. The baby cannot be saved in this circumstance as there's no room for the fetus to grow when implanted in the tube; only the mother's life can be saved.  Another time I interviewed a girl who had been raped by her own father when she was 13 years old.  She was forced to give birth against her will and she still regretted this at 18 when I met her; she lived in a state where a teen couldn't get an abortion without a judge's approval, and the judge said no.  We hear a lot about the rights of the unborn, but what gets lost are the very real health, traumatic and sometimes life-threatening risks to mothers. Why should one life outweigh another?  Shouldn't mothers, families and doctors be able to participate in deciding which life to put first, when both cannot be saved without harm to the other?