Editor’s note: This letter is a response to the letter “Right to abortion too fundamental to leave to the states”, published Oct. 26.

I would like to thank Eugene Clegg for his letter keeping the issue of abortion before readers. He seemed concerned that we may return to 1861, when states had the ability to determine whether slavery should be legal.

I would remind readers that not only was the blood of innumerable northern soldiers shed in the Civil War to remedy that injustice, but also the 13th Amendment of the Constitution was passed to end slavery. May I suggest that the same process be undergone to ensure the protection of what Clegg considers “basic rights”, including abortion, hopefully without the bloodshed, but with the process of amending the Constitution, as been done 27 times.

So, yes, the U.S. Supreme Court did interpret the Constitution to return to the states the ability to determine issues of such import so that unless there are explicit Constitutional protections of such rights, the will of the people can elect legislators to make laws instead of thrusting legislative duties onto unelected justices in D.C.

At the risk of sounding like I’m attacking Clegg personally, I will quote a line from his letter:

“I am not going to argue here about the morality of abortion…”.

I think that was wise since it is hard to defend the termination of innocent human life.

I think the bottom line in defending the right to life, explicitly guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments, is that it must supersede all other rights; without life, all other rights are null and void.

Secondly, I’m glad the election is over and I believe the will of the voters of Washington have spoken.

Abortion is not only legal in our state, but paid for out of my taxes.

Majority rules.

I confess that I find it virtually impossible to separate my faith and values from my political views.

I accept that many other Christians, however, voted differently than I did on issues concerning how we will be represented on abortion other issues. I respect those differences. The reason I can accept the results of the election, even though in some cases I voted for candidates that lost, is that I prayed for God’s will to be done and therefore, as a believer, I have to trust that that was the case.

So from here, until some sort of legal protection for unborn children is enacted into law, I’m joining the pro-choice bandwagon in supporting those who find themselves in situations that seem hopeless regarding an unplanned pregnancy by financially supporting crisis pregnancy clinics. I would encourage others in the body of Christ to do the same.

Let us give women who are in that situation the support that they need to choose life for the child they are carrying. Let us love and help them, instead of judging and condemning. And, as a culture, I hope we can make adoption a more acceptable option, or better yet, support choices that would help women avoid unplanned pregnancies altogether.

Mark Akers

Enumclaw