Letter: Focus on positive results of court decision

Virtually every article in your paper reporting on the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe is negative and critical toward the decision. In your Sunday opinion, you predict a fearful effect on the country as a result of this ruling, including the potential loss of the rights such as the right to choose whom to marry.

You state the decision to overturn Roe will likely bring about volatility and unpredictability, raising the disturbing specter of a very combative and erratic future, a highly disheveled, perhaps even legally chaotic, future in America. Why not balance the fear mongering articles with articles supporting the decision to overturn Roe with the reasons below?

The Supreme Court overturned an early 1970s decision that exceeded its constitutional authority and is based on the weak argument of an individual's right of privacy to decide to have an abortion. This argument has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution. Ruth Bader Ginsburg while pro-choice, believed the 1970s ruling was based on faulty reasoning.

The decision of abortion is now in the hands of the voters in each state to decide whether they want abortion or not in their state.

The preservation of human life and the victory for defenseless babies who otherwise may have been brutally dismembered in the womb.

An alternative to a culture in which life is disposable.

A chance to focus on adoption, making it less expensive and cumbersome for qualified parents. There are enough qualified parents who want to adopt these unwanted babies.

Improve access to birth control, health insurance and common sense sex education.

Welcome the potential societal contributions of the newborn.

Would love to see a more balanced and unbiased reporting from the Daily Herald, particularly when the subject is life or death of the most vulnerable in our society.

John Conerty

Barrington