A ‘little woman’ watches her rights fade away | Letters
Here’s what readers are saying in Tuesday’s letters to the editor.
A rally of about 200 pro-choice advocates gather at Syracuse's federal plaza to demonstrate against the  Supreme Court in May.
A rally of about 200 pro-choice advocates gather at Syracuse's federal plaza to demonstrate against the Supreme Court in May. [ DENNIS NETT | DNETT | ]
Published July 5, 2022

Watching rights evaporate

Roe v. Wade struck down | June 25

When I was first married, I couldn’t get a credit card in my own name, even though I made more money and had a solid job to guarantee that income. My name couldn’t be first on our mortgage, and I couldn’t title a car in my name, even if I paid for it. In fact, unless I, the “little woman,” was accompanied by my spouse, I couldn’t even buy the car!

To anticipate the loss of any of these small gains is one thing, but the loss of a woman’s right to control her life, health and future is devastating for those of us who fought for equal rights for decades. Five old white men and one seemingly repressed white woman have taken the country and the Supreme Court of the United States down a very dangerous path.

I fear I won’t see the return of a woman’s right to choose, much less any further advancements, in my lifetime. What I will see is the continued destruction of our democracy and loss of more hard-won rights.

Lari Johnson, South Pasadena

Better contraception today

Roe v. Wade struck down | June 25

Though perhaps a tangential issue, it is still relevant to review the progress that has been made with contraception over the last 49 years, since Roe v. Wade — now overturned — was decided. Shouldn’t the fact of this progress somewhat detract from any serious argument that abortion be near the top of any list as a method of contraception?

President Bill Clinton once said our goal should be to see abortion as “safe, legal and rare.” Today, it may be understandable that President Joe Biden took a partisan stance with the coming near-term election in his condemnation of the court’s decision on the Dobbs v. Jackson case. But wouldn’t it have been more presidential for him rather to have praised the measured position of Chief Justice John Roberts even while lamenting the inability of the chief justice to sway his more activist colleagues?

David Hennig, St. Petersburg

At the top

Trump’s Jan. 6 rampage | June 29

The work of the Jan. 6 committee makes it clear that the facts lead directly to the Oval Office. The attempt to overturn the 2020 election was not just the brainchild of an angry mob. I believe there was a criminal conspiracy with a sitting president, Donald Trump, at the head. The Department of Justice must act and prosecute all co-conspirators or Attorney General Merrick Garland’s pledge that “we will follow the facts wherever they lead” is meaningless.

Jim Paladino, Tampa