With the opening of the legislative session, it is especially important that our legislators recognize its implications.

Yet few have ever read the decision. And even fewer have read it critically.

The key to critical reading is recognizing what the author takes as fact.

The issue here isn’t really whether something IS a fact or not — although that does matter. The issue is which, from the infinite available facts, an author selects as significant. Which does he or she choose to offer as evidence, as examples, as illustrations?

President Bush, for example, talks about the number of elderly who will get some coverage for prescription drugs with the implementation of the new Medicare bill — as, indeed, some will. In so doing, he portrays the bill in a positive light.

Sen. Kennedy talks about the prohibition against negotiating for lower drug prices — as is equally true. And our image of the bill changes.

Few disagreements ever arise from differences in logic. Disagreements can usually be traced to different assumptions or evidence. Given the choice of evidence, the conclusions follow automatically.

So what about Roe v. Wade?

The following are excerpts from the opposing opinions in that case. Notice in particular the circumstances of the woman that each of the justices considers.

• Justice Harry A. Blackmun, for the majority:

  “The detriment that the state should impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice [of getting an abortion] altogether is apparent.

  “... Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care.

  “There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”

• Justice Byron R. White, in dissent:

  “At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are nevertheless unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons, convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc.

  “The common claim before us is that for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat of life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical adviser willing to undertake the procedure.”

Justice White selects illustrations of women undergoing no real social or psychological trauma, merely acting for reasons of convenience and personal preference.

Two different starting points lead inevitably to different conclusions.

What is the moral?

Thursday was also Lobby Day for Choice, a day when legislators are asked to evaluate their own perspectives on this vital issue.

Reading Roe v. Wade critically, the root of the issue becomes clear. Legislators are asked to recognize the very real plight of so many women. And they are asked not to deny or inhibit those women’s means of escape from real present and future hardship.

Kurland is a Charleston social activist, health action coordinator for Covenant House, and author of the Web site www.criticalreading.com.

© Copyright 1996-2004 The Charleston Gazette