Rich Elfers (“New Attacks on Roe v. Wade,” published May 22, 2019) seems to suspend critical thinking regarding the legal implications of the abortion debate.

While the plight of unwanted pregnancy may sometimes be pitiable, the end does not justify the means and this emotional argument has nothing to do with the constitutionality of abortion which is where the debate will inevitably lead.

Mr. Elfers is fond of lecturing his readers about government functions and U.S. history but in this case fails to recognize that the current debate is not an “attack” but rather a sublime example of our democracy in action.

Elfers suggests that moderates on both sides should compromise. However, if the Supreme Court considers a challenge to the current abortion law, that decision will be “winner take all” as was the case with Roe nearly 50 years ago. One need look no farther than the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and the subsequent 14th and 15th amendments to understand the legal considerations in play.

In the former, African Americans were considered less than full persons; in the latter, they were deemed to be full persons, not property (i.e., inalienable rights supersede property rights).

In a similar way, advances in fetal research (i.e., science) since 1973 have established the unique, extrinsic, biological humanity of preborns that the SCOTUS is unlikely to ignore.

I implore Mr. Elfers to use the space granted to him by this newspaper wisely.

Brian DiNielli

Enumclaw