The Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision, ‘for Now’

More from our inbox:

• The Conservative Crusade Against Transgender Rights
• ‘Give Ukraine Everything It Needs’ to Drive the Russians Out

To the Editor:

Re “Justices, for Now, Safeguard Access to Abortion Pills” (front page, April 22):

No two words in the struggle for abortion rights are more threatening than “for now.”

The threat to repeal Roe v. Wade was in the news throughout much of my 86 years. And the reality of “for now” rang loud and clear with this Supreme Court ruling.

Just how long access to the abortion pills will be available remains a constant “for now” — in spite of the majority of Americans’ support for the right of choice.

How unjust that justice rests with nine justices.

Doris Fenig
Boca Raton, Fla.

To the Editor:

Let no one take solace in this delay. It is not a harbinger of how this hypocritical Supreme Court may eventually rule. If the conservative justices can find an excuse to take the abortion pill mifepristone off the market, they will.

Keep in mind their ruling supporting state laws that restricted abortion, under the guise of “protecting” women’s health, when major medical organizations said they would have the exact opposite effect.

The conservative justices have no shame about their intellectual dishonesty.

Harlan Kosson
Pittsford, N.Y.
The writer is a psychiatrist.

To the Editor:

Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent in the abortion pill decision emphasizes his employment of politics in his actions.

He writes, “The Government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong objections.”

There is nothing judicial or judicious in that comment. He’s accusing the Biden administration of illegal behavior based on the fears of conspiracy authors instead of evidence. It is the application of activism that has been Justice Alito’s trademark.

The Supreme Court needs to set aside its arrogance and rely on interpreting our laws based on facts. But I’m not holding my breath.

Jay Margolis
Delray Beach, Fla.

To the Editor:

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appear to want abortion decisions left to the states. Well, I live in Washington State, and we are treating many women crossing our border to have abortions. Although I completely support medical care for them, the situation does not stay in one state.

It was the same with Covid, when Washington State treated folks from Idaho. Political misinformation overloaded Idaho’s hospitals, and our medical system saved their lives.

The angry men on the Supreme Court seem detached from reality.

Georgi Krom
Seattle

To the Editor:

Re “Ruling on Pill Puts Prudence Above Power” (news analysis, front page, April 23):

The extreme-right-leaning Supreme Court took a pass this time to save what credibility it has. Are the justices “chastened,” as you put it, or is it that they just don’t want to make another unpopular decision that will give Democrats an edge in 2024?

Maybe the vehemence of a growing young electorate has tempered their decision for now. Chastened, no. Afraid, yes.

Donna Sloan
Los Angeles

To the Editor:

Few in the media or our elected officials seem to be talking about the separation of church and state, one of the most important issues affecting our democracy.

All religious groups in America have a right to their views, but none have a right to impose their views on others. Some Supreme Court justices seem to think otherwise.

Let’s let them know that it’s un-American!

Miriam Kagan Margoshes
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.

The Conservative Crusade Against Transgender Rights

To the Editor:

Re “How Transgender Issues Became a New Rallying Cry for the Right” (front page, April 16):

From Stonewall to Obergefell, it took almost 50 years for Americans to see gay men and lesbians as deserving of equal rights and dignity. It required political action and education to bring this about, but the biggest change arguably occurred because more and more people came out, and then others saw that we were their friends, co-workers and even family.

While the cynical mobilization chronicled in your report is profoundly disturbing, in the long term, I’m optimistic for my trans brothers and sisters, since that same coming out phenomenon is occurring now in their community.

No amount of political fear mongering can convince most Americans that discrimination against someone they actually know, and like, is OK. Hopefully, it won’t take another 50 years.

Richard Socarides
New York
The writer served as the White House special assistant to the president for civil rights during the Clinton administration.

To the Editor:

I find it worth pointing out that the groups who are looking to restrict the rights and options of families with trans children are the same ones with names like “Alliance Defending Freedom” and “Liberty Counsel.”

Where in the definition of liberty would we find the desire to restrict lifesaving gender-affirming care for a population with an overwhelmingly high suicide rate that makes up less than 2 percent of Americans?

What sort of freedom would give us laws that subject children and teens to the humiliation of proving their gender to play sports or use the bathroom?

What sort of liberty and freedom do trans people have when these laws prevent them from exploring and nurturing the person they want to become?

We must take anti-trans laws and any attempts to disempower trans people seriously, as they are attacks on the individual liberties and freedoms of us all. Each time we cede the rights and freedoms of people who share an identity, we pave the way for it to happen again and again.

This is best explained by the American lawyer Clarence Darrow: “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.”

Tyler Bennett
Berkeley, Calif.
The writer is a mental health educator and advocate.

‘Give Ukraine Everything It Needs’ to Drive the Russians Out

To the Editor:

Re “Pentagon Delivers Tanks Quicker Than Expected, but Refuses to Send Jets” (news article, April 22):

The United States has been behind the curve in assisting Ukraine since shortly after the start of the war. It should have been clear once Russia bogged down in the face of unprecedented Ukrainian resistance that this would be a long war of attrition waged by Vladimir Putin.

Training on the arms for land, air and even sea should have started within weeks of the start of the war. This would have enabled Ukraine to punish the Russian Army even sooner and more severely.

That would be the only thing that might have pushed Russia’s citizens to question Mr. Putin’s criminal war and could have hampered his ability to so totally control the messaging inside Russia.

Countless lives would have been saved and the costly destruction lessened. Call Mr. Putin’s nuclear bluff and give Ukraine everything it needs as soon as possible to drive the Russians out.

Kent Rhodes
Charlotte, N.C.