Letters to the Editor | Oct. 19, 2022

The editorial “New threats from courts” was uninformed and ill-advised, criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Barbara McDermott, for decisions that were wholly justified under the law, presumably because the board disagreed with them.

Judge McDermott is a Common Pleas Court judge who dismissed the grand jury indictment against former police officer Ryan Pownall because the prosecutor failed to give required legal instructions, and had done “so many things wrong.” Yet, despite clear facts showing it was the incompetent actions of the prosecutor that led to Judge McDermott’s decision, the board claimed she was the one who dealt a “blow” to “social justice.” With regard to the district attorney, the board merely advised that he “make sure the cases are airtight” lest it “undermine his credibility.” Doesn’t a prosecutor who fails to act with competence deal a blow to social justice when his/her actions cause a case to be dismissed?

And with regard to the ruling of the Supreme Court to void the decision of the Third Circuit allowing undated written ballots to be counted in Pennsylvania, the editorial was misleading. While one could complain the Supreme Court should not have accepted the case to begin with, by the time the ruling was made, the election results in the case had already been certified, meaning there was no longer an active controversy. So the court followed a practice of voiding the lower court decision since the case could no longer be fully heard and decided on appeal. While the ruling means the controversy over counting undated written ballots in Pennsylvania will continue, it allows a voter-friendly disposition to come to fruition again in Pennsylvanian in the future.

Thus, there was no blow to equity and justice in these decisions of the court, only in the uninformed and misleading editorial that criticized them.

Doris A. Pechkurow, retired, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge, Philadelphia

The pro-life reader who denies that abortion is a basic right makes the claim that people of faith believe that God is the author of life. As a person of faith, I also honor God as the author of life, but I think the reader missed a very important point. Not all abortions are a result of “inconvenient pregnancies,” done in order to make life more “comfortable.” This is an outrageous accusation made against those who have been raped or have been told their babies will suffer and die soon after birth. Forcing a child to endure an unwanted fullterm pregnancy is nothing short of abuse. There are so many scenarios in which the physical, psychological, and emotional survival of the mother depends on ending a pregnancy. Some people of faith see these situations as the result of living in a fallen world rather than God’s will. So please don’t equate ending a pregnancy for convenience with all abortions. A woman and a 10-year-old child have the right to save their own lives when the pregnancy results from an act of violence or when the results of the pregnancy will be tragic. That’s why safe abortions need to be a choice.

Sandra Detweiler, West Chester

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.