RE CAROL Towarnicky's op-ed
"Too Catholic for the court?" (May 9)
on the partial-birth abortion ruling:
It was only a matter of time before this became a "Catholic" issue. Leaving aside the questions of the validity of examining Supreme Court nominees regarding their religious affiliations and the "moral value" of a fetus, the logic of this essay escapes me.
At what point does coincidence become proof of cause and effect? There are five justices on the court who happen to be Catholic and whose rulings on a particular issue coincide. (Toss in some Latin, like Opus Dei, and you begin to see mad monks under the bed.)
From this silly premise, some conclude that these justices consulted with one another, reached a "Catholic" consensus . . . a ban on a late-term abortion procedure. This conspiracy sounds more like "The DaVinci Code" than a legitimate examination of judicial decision-making. (And I would say that "know-nothing" fits this conclusion exactly.)
Gloria C. Endres, Philadelphia
Rest assured that the health of American women is not in jeopardy because of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Please read it.
More than a million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling.
Your sky is not falling in . . . yet. Unfortunately, women can still obtain an abortion.
The silent majority of the American people are sick and tired of women getting away with murder.
Joe Lang, Ocean City, N.J.
I take issue with cartoonist Signe Wilkinson's use of a purse over the shoulder to identify Jim McGreevey as a gay man.
Evidently, the ignorant stereotype that gay men really want to be women and play "dress-up" is still with us.