Letter: Basic rights and children who are suffering

The juxtaposition in May 17's Opinion section of the Herald's view of the DCFS crisis and the first letter in the column below, written by reader Gerry Bliss, was ironic. DCFS, an agency charged with monitoring "the conditions of abused and neglected children" is failing thousands of these children due to internal problems of staffing and organization. Meanwhile, Mr./Ms. Bliss asserts that (s)he is "sure" that the Founding Fathers meant to "include an unborn child" in the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But where is the liberty and happiness of those thousands of abused children such as those in the charge of DCFS? What sort of "life" do those unfortunate children have?

Mr./Ms. Bliss claims that "nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a woman has the right to kill her unborn child under the guise of 'choice.'" However, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does state that a citizen of the United States is one who is either born or naturalized within the nation's borders. An unborn child is neither of these.

I am curious to know what folks who agree with the letter writer are doing to help alleviate the suffering of already-born young American citizens who are neglected, abused, or hungry. Or they more concerned about forcing women to give birth to babies that they do not want or cannot care for? What about those women's rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness promised them in the Declaration of Independence? What about a victim of rape or incest? Are her rights less important than the potential child she is compelled to give birth to?

Abortions have existed since the beginning of humankind and will continue to happen even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. They will just be, like 50 years ago, more unsafe, with more women dying unnecessarily.

Katharine Berman

Arlington Heights