Thank you for your fine, closely reasoned, and clearly argued editorial on the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade.

Whatever a person’s ethical, religious, or political views on abortion, the legal reasoning the Court used to support their decision is clearly historically distorted. In the time period the Court’s majority focused on, it was illegal for married women to control their own earnings. And, it was legal for a husband to sexually abuse his spouse; that is, by legal definition, a wife could not be “raped” by her husband, no matter the actual circumstances. Would Justice Alito also use these historical examples to determine the true meaning of the Constitution today?

To call on history selectively to support an argument is junk thinking. It is unworthy of those with the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution for the rest of us.

David Kobrin

Diane Berreth

Orcas Island