One reader wrote: ‘I hope judges interpret the law and not public opinion’ [“Roe v. Wade draft provokes readers,” Letters, May 8]. I hope so, because the Constitution does not grant the right to force anyone to have a child. A possible exception went to slave masters, but slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment.

Another reader wrote: “It has been established that life begins at conception. However, there is no right to be born except as a religious belief. Establishing religious belief in law, whether by court or Congress, would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Another reader wrote: ‘Politico who posted the leaked dossier must have been aware this has never happened before.’ But it’s happened before, coincidentally regarding Roe v. Wade. In July 1972, The Washington Post reported that while a clear majority of justices supported abortion as a constitutional right, Chief Justice Warren Burger opposed it and tried to block the decision until so that President Richard Nixon can appoint two new judges.

If Nixon had had Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader, I wonder if “We the People” would still have constitutional rights.

James Moyssiadis, Mount Sinai

Ireland, a predominantly Catholic country, rejected its abortion ban in 2018 in a national vote. Why can’t we do that in this country and thwart the goals of the five conservatives who are considering making abortion a criminal act in some states? This is an issue that affects far too many Americans to be mandated by five unelected people who were not candid in their Senate confirmation hearings.

Karl Bean, Mount Sinai

Two readers claimed hypocrisy on the part of abortion opponents in that ‘my body, my choice’ applies to abortion but not mask and vaccine mandates [“Debating hypocrisy of ‘my body, my choice’,” Letters, May 15]. But these readers miss the main difference between the two.

Abortion rights advocates believe people have the right not to mask or vaccinate – unless they are interacting with others. Because once they do, their choice to not vaccinate or not wear a mask is no longer just their own choice. They affect other people and interfere with those people’s choices.

So there is no real hypocrisy on the part of abortion rights advocates, but there is real hypocrisy on the part of the anti-abortion mob who want to control a woman’s reproductive rights but maintain his right not to mask or vaccinate.

Scott Diamond, Levittown

A reader says a ‘zygote is not a person’ even though it contains a person’s full genetic blueprint [“Court draft devaluing the life of a woman?” Letters, May 15]. He likens this genetic blueprint to a set of architectural blueprints for a building, saying “Even blueprints revised with wood, nails, and bags of cement aren’t a building yet.”

I agree that if we came back to the same wood, nails and cement nine months later, they would be exactly the same, completely unchanged. However, if left in place, the zygotes do not remain unchanged. In fact, if left intact in the womb for nine months, they are usually born healthy humans – as expected from the moment of conception. Abortion doesn’t just ignore plans. It breaks a building already in progress.

The draft courtship does not attempt to “elevate the zygote to super-person status”, but simply recognizes it for what it is – a human, separate and apart from its mother.

Dolly Kalhorn, Babylon of the North

Most Americans surveyed said they thought Roe v. Wade shouldn’t be canceled. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell defended an impending Supreme Court decision by pointing to his 1989 ruling that struck down bans on desecration of the American flag.

Yes, most Americans surveyed would certainly consider the act of burning the flag heinous despite its First Amendment protection. But to compare what is strictly a free speech issue with that of a woman’s health and substantial impediments to her livelihood is an inexcusable exercise in harmful fallacy.

Nicholas Santora, Roslyn Heights

We need to keep our New York State government in check on how it spends our money. [“State abortion plan irks NYers,” Letters, May 15]. If the cry is “my body, my choice”, then I’ll add “your wallet”. It’s been great to hear how people want accountability for their decisions. So let it be entirely their responsibility and don’t put the price on others for their desires.

Our Democratic leaders in Albany want to suck $35 million of our money to pay for “reproductive freedom and equity.” Really?

We need to stop wasting our tax dollars. Abortion opponents need to make their voices heard loud and clear in Albany. The life you save may not be yours.

David L. Solano, Bayside

I agree with Cathy Young that the permanent decision to remove state and federal abortion restrictions is not perfect and politically divisive, but from an “abortion rights perspective , Roe had many positive consequences” [“The confounding legacy of Roe v. Wade,” Opinion, May 5].

It is one of the most difficult, emotional and personal decisions one can make. We should respect a woman’s right to control her own body. We need to be sensitive to individual cases, such as rape, incest and health risks to the mother. Moreover, the strict interpretation of “design” limits the potential merits of leveraging stem cell research to save or prolong that same sanctity of life.

If we, as a democratic and caring society, are genuinely concerned about the “sanctity of life,” let us focus on better child care and gun safety.

Any decision, among the options of parenthood, adoption and termination of pregnancy, should be the choice of a family and, first and foremost, of the woman to best provide the financial, emotional and spiritual support required of a loving family.

Kevin Hoepper, Long Beach

The controversy between abortion opponents and abortion rights advocates in the United States is a microcosm of a global problem that will continue long after any Supreme Court rulings are made. The reason for this is that in the evolutionary battle for survival as a species, humans face unlimited population growth, but Earth is finite in size and resources. Without birth control, it will be harder for the world to support this population.

Opponents of abortion do not want pregnancies terminated, and there are those who oppose abortion who also oppose birth control. This is not a solution. Serious family planning programs, including contraception, must be promoted around the world with the same effort as those carried out against poliomyelitis, AIDS and COVID-19.

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade, the problem of overpopulation cannot be ignored.

Bill Domjan, Melville