By By Brendan O’Reilly

In The Chronicle’s Nov. 18 issue, a letter to the editor from Dave Brownstein accused me of irresponsible journalism. He strongly criticized this paper for disseminating my “misinformation,” in a forum that is supposed to contain opinions.

The letter stated, “First of all it is blatantly false to say that overturning Roe v. Wade would make having an abortion a federal crime.” Brownstein was correct. That is false. Of course, I never actually said that.

I presented two separate hypotheticals. One was a potential repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would allow states to decide whether or not to have legalized abortion. The second hypothetical was a Supreme Court ban on abortion throughout the nation. Such a ban is possible if the court decided that fetuses have all the rights of a citizen.

Brownstein’s second argument was that I justified the legality of abortion because people would do it anyway. He compared it to justifying legal murder because people murder regardless of the law. My point was that banning abortion will cause a storm of problems, while not actually fixing anything.

If you want to actually stop people from choosing to have abortions there are better methods than protesting clinics and Roe v. Wade. Instead of showing a girl who is six weeks pregnant a picture of an aborted seven months developed fetus, offer her a pamphlet with profiles of families looking to adopt. Tell her how some adoption agencies will let her meet multiple families and choose which family will raise her child. Let her know that some families seeking to adopt are willing to pay for all of her maternity expenses.

Instead of telling women going to a clinic for an abortion that they are going to Hell, tell her about shelters for single mothers in poverty. If there is not a shelter in your area, then concentrate your efforts on starting one. A home for pregnant girls to stay in expense free, could put an abortion clinic out of business better than some angry picketers.

Another good way to reduce the abortion rate: reduce the unwanted pregnancy rate. The two ways to avoid pregnancy would be avoiding sex, obviously, and using contraception.

Some religious anti-abortion groups seem to be counterproductive to their own cause by trying to take sex education out of schools and contraceptives off the market. Using contraception does not result in the termination of life. They overlook that the American government is not responsible for enforcing groups’ religious beliefs over the entire nation. If contraceptive devices are taken off the market, people will not magically cease having sex out of wedlock. More unwanted pregnancies will occur, which will result in more abortions.

Schools must teach contraception education in conjunction with abstinence education. While it sounds nice to save sex until marriage, it is not the reality for most people in the United States. It has not been the reality for a few generations (if it ever was), and it is not going to change.

Brownstein’s final argument compared Roe v Wade to Plessy v. Ferguson, because I stated I hope Bush appointees on the Supreme Court will respect precedent. These two decisions are hardly comparable. Plessy v. Ferguson restricted rights, while Roe v. Wade extended rights.

Brownstein contends that the government’s stance on abortion “is unpopular in the hearts and minds of the majority of citizens…”

I would not bet on the right to abortion being unpopular among the majority of Americans. If it were as Brownstein says, then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito would not have recanted a statement he made on abortion in a “Personal Qualifications Statement” in 1985 when applying for an Assistant Attorney General position in the Reagan Administration.

The Bush Administration and Samuel Alito know that he will not be confirmed if he comes out against abortion. Anti-abortion candidates and nominees may fly in red states, but not on Capitol Hill.

I reiterate my hope that if Alito is confirmed to the Supreme Court he will respect Roe v. Wade.