Why should killing babies not be a presidential issue?

TO THE EDITOR:

The guest editorial in the May 9 issue of the Standard, ?Abortion shouldn?t be presidential issue,? written by Jeanette Henderson is misconceived.

Since when is the destruction of a pre-born human not a public issue? How can you compromise the destruction of human life?

Ms. Henderson states, ?The fact is abortion has been legal in this country for over 30 years now, and few people would not want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation.?

There has never been a law passed by Congress giving a right to abortion. This law is on the books through judicial tyranny. Unfortunately, slavery was allowed for centuries until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was brought about by a president.

Ms. Henderson talks about the butchery of abortion before Roe v. Wade. How much butchery is involved in partial-birth abortions? This is sucking the brains from an infant.

She also equates the abortion issue with the prohibition of alcohol. Perhaps she is right because alcohol and abortion are similar in some respects. They both have the ability to kill or maim innocent people and there is no doubt pre-born babies are people.

The cost of abortion is enormous, not only in lives but in money. One organization proudly admits that it had performed 1.39 million abortions from 1997 to 2003. These groups claim their aim is to reduce the number of abortions but statistics prove otherwise.

This organization received funding in grants from the federal government from 1997 to 2003. These funds totaled $1.49 billion and they continue to receive funding from the taxpayers.

My question is why should this issue not be considered when it comes to a presidential candidate? Perhaps it is because all Democrat hopefuls support the right to kill innocent pre-born babies. It is a plank in the Democrat platform.

Thank you,

Laverne Grieves

Beersheba Highway

McMinnville