According to the Jan. 29 Our View, the Portland Press Herald editorial board believes the plan (L.D. 1619) to expand abortion access “is not ‘extreme.’ ” Most Americans don’t agree. They are against second- and third-trimester abortions. Even pro-choice Americans oppose late-term abortions.

First, the vast majority of over 1,000 Mainers who testified about this bill at the State House and online opposed it. Second, could the editors, and all those politicians supporting L.D. 1619, reflect on that fact more? Wasn’t that the largest number of Mainers opposing a bill ever?

Apparently, the editorial board also supports Gov. Mills breaking a campaign promise, as her bill is “humane.” How humane is it? Isn’t it a biological fact that a pregnant woman has not one but two bodies within her? Fact: Women are not men; they have babies. That is well beyond a special responsibility.

Here’s another question: What’s the purpose of having campaign promises that can be violated once a politician gets elected or reelected? Instead of quickly overlooking this violation of Gov. Mills’ campaign promise, why not question it at least a bit? After all, don’t newspaper editors endorse candidates based on campaign promises? Don’t at least some of your readers rely on your candidate endorsements? Please think about this.

Lastly, the editorial board stated Jan. 29 that “anti-abortion factions refuse to think … in anything but absolutes.” Isn’t ending life – in the third trimester – also “absolute” and “extreme,” too?

May your readers have a more balanced view and encourage the defeat of L.D. 1619. Let’s stay with the current law. It is more fair and less extreme.

Joe Pickering Jr.
Bangor