First Amendment should be recognized in abortion debate

More than 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers, well-acquainted with the religious wars in Europe and the Middle East, agreed upon the First Amendment to their new constitution. That amendment was intended to keep the corrosive affects of religion out of our government. Why is it that religious quacks are still trying to force their religious dogma, anti-abortion and other anti-women rights, upon us by laws?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision decided that abortions are legal in this country. Polls show increasing support of that decision [“Support for legal abortion rises, 40 years later,” page one, Jan. 23]. Why must we constantly have to fight off attempts by religious quacks to impose their views upon all of us with state laws counter to the First Amendment and the Supreme Court decision?

As Thomas Jefferson wisely said, religions are based upon fables and mythology, yet for at least 2000 years, men have been killing each other over religious differences — differences in fables and mythology. And the killing over nonsense continues.

I have considered myself a Republican since former President Herbert Hoover, when I was parroting my parents. I am still for smaller, less-intrusive government. But I want a government, not constant obstinacy and religious intrusion, such as seems to prevail among Republicans. I want governmental progress, adherence to the First Amendment, not quackery.

--Spencer M. Higley, Edmonds

“Choice” goes beyond abortion; values vary in state

A Seattle Times editorial begins, “Supporting a woman’s right to choose is a Washington value” [“Lawmakers should pass reproductive parity act,” Opinion, Jan. 23].

It is so tiresome for me to keep reading and hearing that cliché, “a woman’s right to choose.” Choose what? Are you afraid to say, a woman’s right to choose an abortion (i.e., kill her unborn child)? Do you want to make the pro-life people look like they are against all choices (i.e., against democracy, the American way of life, etc.)?

And you say it is a Washington value. It is more a Puget Sound-area value: a liberal island in this state that consistently outvotes the rest of the state. I wonder how many people in this state like having their tax money used to give money to abortion providers.

--Brent Begalka, Redmond