Ms. Golston:

I do have a lot to lose: I have two adult daughters and a granddaughter. I want all of them to have the full range of reproductive choices.

I also have a lot to lose if any women are denied the right to choose.

I am nearly 70 years old. I was 23 when the Supreme Court heard Roe v. Wade. I remember very well the horror stories about abortions before 1973.

If you read my response to Mr. Crawford’s comment, you will find that I have thought about the hardship that traveling might (and probably would) impose on a woman.

But you apparently don’t see how having some choice is better than no choice and it may very well be as close to real choice as we can get for a while.

The Supreme Court didn’t go far enough in Roe v. Wade. It said that a woman had the constitutional right but didn’t say that right was absolute. If you look at the incredible patchwork of restrictions on abortion that exist now, you will find that what I am saying is true.

It reminds me of the court’s ruling in United States v. Cruikshank in 1875. The court held that the Second Amendment protects a right that exists independent of the Constitution but citizens must look to the states to secure that right. As is the case with abortion laws, there is a large difference in gun laws from state to state.

Worse, in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court undid much of what had been included in the earlier ruling. It was this ruling that opened the floodgates for an increasing number of restrictions.

I don’t mean to be a downer, but it’s pretty obvious to me that we’re not going to get the nationwide freedom that women should have. When the debate reaches issues like personhood for a zygote, any rational discussion of women’s reproductive rights has gone right out the window. As I said in my article, the rational answer to the issue is that those who oppose abortion shouldn’t have one.

In the same paragraph I said that the ultimate decision will always be the woman’s to make. I just want her to be safe.