Content provided in partnership with
Art of compromise - Letters - Letter to the Editor
Washington Monthly, March, 2004
"A Time to Choose" (by Amy Sullivan, December) provides an interesting, if disheartening, look into how the vested interests of various one-issue groups can derail reasonable attempts by reasonable people to craft workable compromises in difficult policy matters. The ability to reach compromise among differing opinions has always been one of the hallmarks of success in American governance. Now, in tOO many cases, honest differences of opinion metamorphose all too readily into ideologies, and the stakes ratchet up for both sides.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
Sullivan's account of an attempt to find a workable alternative to "all or nothing" in the abortion debate reminds us that there are, in fact, men and women of good sense and good-will in our national government, but whose efforts are often thwarted by the shrill noises of those at the ideological poles or, worse, by the reluctance of supposedly responsible public-interest groups to risk the wrath of the ideologues.
Democracy is not well served by this deliberate polarization of issues, or by toadying to it.
Charles Murphy
Durham, NC
The Maryland General Assembly accomplished what the Congress did not. We passed a law codifying the holding of Roe v. Wade.
Under our statute, the state may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is viable, which is defined as capable of "sustained survival outside the womb." Post viability, the decision remains that of the woman and the people whom she chooses to consult--if an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman or the ferns is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.
Anticipating that the bill would be petitioned to referendum, pro-choice legislators included a parental notice provision in the legislation, over the initial objections of the advocacy community. A physician, not a judge, determines if the notice provision should be waived because a minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent to an abortion or notification would not be in the minor's best interest.
Maryland voters overwhelmingly approved this law on referendum, 62-38 percent. I was the pro-choice floor leader when the bill passed the Maryland House of Delegates in 1991.
Samuel I. Rosenberg
via email
COPYRIGHT 2004 Washington Monthly Company
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
