Abortion ban is no compromise

Re “Balancing abortion and family rights,” Opinion, May 25

Charles Camosy states that the U.S. is not friendly to women who become pregnant; he wants Democrats in Congress to agree to pass the so-called Pain Capable Unborn Child Act, which would ban most abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, as a compromise for popular programs like paid family leave and publicly funded child care.

This is ridiculous. The proposed law, which is not at all based on scientific fact, would actually increase hostility toward pregnant women in the U.S. Women who have testing for fetal abnormalities are typically not made aware of their results until the 20th week.

If family paid leave is supported by both side in huge majorities, as Camosy states, shouldn’t that be enough to get it passed? Joyce Schorr

Los Angeles The writer is president of the Women’s Reproductive Rights Assistance Project.

While I personally believe that a decision concerning abortion should be between a woman, her family and her doctor, I believe that both sides of this controversy need to compromise. But I do not believe that the Pain Capable Unborn Child act is the answer.

Not all fetal diseases and developmental issues can be discovered before 20 weeks, and insurance companies don’t necessarily cover the tests for them. For example, my daughter was found to have a soft marker for Down Syndrome just prior to 20 weeks, but she was just a bit too young to have amniocentesis

covered by her insurance.

Camosy’s compromise would foist less than accurate testing on women because of an arbitrary deadline, plus it would deny any remedy past that date.

A better compromise would be to disallow thirdtrimester abortions, limit second-trimester ones based on medical reasons and allow first-trimester abortions for any reason. This compromise would offend radicals on both sides, but it is workable. Stefanie DuBois

New Rochelle, N.Y.