To the editors:

I would like to respond to your April 7 news article which made your front page. Since it was a news article and not an Op Ed piece, I know that you sought to maintain an unbiased reporting of strict facts. I have faith that you were sensitive to ALL of your readers before you set out to report “No Choice.”

Because of this, I wish to point out a few flaws that have even slipped through your diligent hands. The picture on the front page was of a woman in her third trimester of pregnancy and not of the fetus who has “no choice.”

Your layout editors overlooked the interviews with representatives from the prolife community. While we’re on that subject, a computer virus must have altered the proper terminology of “prolife” and replaced it with the slanted “antiabortion.” Now, my friends keep trying to convince me that you did that intentionally; but I tell them that you are too professional than to pull an infantile stunt like that.

This is the part that I can’t explain, perhaps you could explain it. You see, the facts that you printed do not match government publications which report that nearly $1,000,000,000 is spent annually on abortions. That’s over $400 per abortion. (And you never knew that human life could be bought so cheaply.) Oh, I forgot to clarify these dollar amounts are purely tax fundings.

I could also tell that you meant to inform the reader that 78 percent of the abortions are performed on minors in secret. You meant to show that this is a clear violation of parental rights.

Most readers skipped the part where you discuss that a woman can claim the fetus as her child when suing the liable driver in a car accident. They didn’t make the connection with the “child” and “fetus” being one and the same. Not only did I read this part of your professional unslanted news story, but I also understood that this law would not be if the fetus were really a part of the female body.

My friends insist that I am rationalizing. They claimed the same thing when I found out that Elvis’s death certificate was faked. They say that your story was really slanted toward Prochoice; that’s not true, is it? You wouldn’t stoop so low as to abuse your medium for propaganda, would you? I’ve read your paper faithfully for many years and I know that you wouldn’t degrade your paper to mere propaganda, worse than any governmental propaganda . . . would you?

Richard Whitehead

S. Halsted