Response to Kimberley McCollum - SB3

Dear Kimberley,

- what's inflammatory about this note is that there is no
reference in it to provisions in the senate and related house bill that
provide conditions for review of the risk to the mother's health. Thus,
if the mother's life were endangered ('imminent death' reference) by
continuing the pregnancy, an exception is made if she chooses to sustain
her life despite the loss of her child's life

-the 'reproductive right' asserted by the Roe v Wade decision is the 'boogey'
man here. In that decision, the court ruled that it was beyond their
expertise to determine if the unborn child was a person to whom the
fundamental US constitutional right to life applied. Yet they still
ruled in favor of Roe and ushered in an era of wanton destruction of
life in the womb, in the name of an extended right to privacy which is an extra -
constitutional (made up) right and, at minimum, a subsidiary right to the fundamental right to life

In poll after poll, for years, a majority of Americans are opposed to the taking of human life in the
womb as indiscriminately as we have since 1973. They are particularly
opposed to being forced to pay for such acts.

So 19 states have already
moved the gestational week limit from 24 to 20.

-the 20 week limit is still barbaric. Most abortions in Europe, for example, occur before the 13th week of gestation.

-finally, what this bill and the supporting senators and reps (both male and
female) attempts to do is fulfill a rightful duty of the state, which
has a vested interest in protecting the right to life of the unborn
child, who cannot protect him/herself

Bob Reynolds

Lansdale