The Globe’s endorsement of the so-called “ROE Act” should concern readers expecting journalistic due diligence. It seems the editorial team did not think through the grave implications of the bill. (“Mass needs abortion law update,” July 3)
Requiring minors to obtain consent ensures one impartial adult will act in a girl’s best interests. Removing this safety measure is irresponsible and fails to protect those who need our care, often the impoverished or girls of color, whom editors rightly pointed out. Sexual predators, like Jeffrey Epstein, will benefit from removal of parental and judicial consent. If girls “are further victimized by capricious laws,” it will be due to legislation that fails them, as will S.1209/H.3320.
As written, this bill will permit an abortionist to end the life of any viable human being, not just those with fatal fetal anomalies. Abortions past 24 weeks may occur due to “all factors.” A fetus with any perceived disability may be killed up to birth, advancing eugenic discrimination.
Curiously, editors didn’t vouch for the bill’s other provisions: removing legal protection and lifesaving treatment for babies who survive abortion; allowing late-term procedures to be performed outside hospitals; increased taxpayer funding—bolstering the theory that a thorough analysis of “ROE” never happened.
Myrna Maloney Flynn
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
*Though the statement above was submitted July 7 to The Boston Globe as a letter to the editor, the paper had still not published the piece as of July 17.