TO THE EDITOR:
The reporting on the Woman’s Right to Know Act offers a disturbingly biased presentation of the recently passed legislation. In “NC abortion law sparks controversy” (Aug. 25), five people are cited opposing the Act while only N.C. Rep. Paul Stam is quoted in its defense.
The author of this article is quick enough to brand the policy as “controversial,” yet it seems that the author is not interested in the controversy. Moreover, it must be asked, why is this legislation so controversial? The article seems to overlook the standard medical practice that is at the heart of this act. For no other major “medical” procedure would it be considered “patronizing” for a doctor to explain all potential options in advance of the procedure.
Sept. 1’s editorial, “The right not to know,” at least concedes that “there is nothing wrong with ensuring that all information is available to a women,” but proceeds to make the claim that $60,000 of an over $19 billion state budget will be too “hard to swallow.” How can we put such a price tag on women’s health?
Finally, the bill defends a woman’s access to abortion. It only seeks to protect her from coercion, and to inform her. It requires that she be informed of the risks of pregnancy as well as those of having an abortion.
Rather than patronizing a woman, it empowers her with the comprehensive information she deserves to make an autonomous decision.
Christina Geradts
President
Carolina Students for Life
