Questioning front-page abortion 'editorial'

In reference to the June 27 article "A law of unintended consequences," I feel compelled to point out a few things that made me question what is going on with the newspaper I grew up delivering and reading.

First, much of it reads more like an editorial than a front-page news article. For example, reporter Heather Gillers' choice of the word "interfering" as opposed to a more appropriate choice such as "legislating" when referring to the requirement for doctors to fully inform women of the possible pain to unborn babies.

Second, she identified Dr. Elizabeth Ferries-Rowe as a Catholic. What possible bearing does it have on the story that Ferries-Rowe identifies herself as a member of a church she seemingly disagrees with on the subject of abortion?

What churches do other people quoted in the article attend? Does the doctor's church affiliation add or detract from her credibility on the subject? Why was it even reported? Maybe because, much like 1970s Northern Ireland, we are in the midst of bloody and passionately fought civil war and everything is fair, even among impartial journalists.

Third, Gillers appeals to that great silencer of the common man, science. Roe v. Wade, the judicial action that removed my freedom to influence my elected representatives regarding abortion law, was not a decision based on science. It was a decision based on constitutional law. I would like to remind The Star's reporters, editors and readers that Dred Scott was once established law, and it also was wrong.

Curtis Lake

Noblesville