In his article, "Words Too Big for Movements," Edward Mulkerin claimed to concentrate on the real issues of the abortion debate. Yet, I was rather amazed by how much of the issue he obviously does not understand.

I will say that I basically agree with his assessment of Operation Rescue as a hypocritical Christian zealot, terrorist organization whose members have nothing better to do with their lives other than harass the workers, doctors, and patients (and their families) of clinics who perform abortions. As a whole, the term "anti-abortion" correctly fits O.R. and any other group dedicated to over-turning Roe v. Wade because their goal is to stop abortions (often at whatever the cost, as the murder of Dr. David Gunn demonstrated).

However, Edward seems to have completely missed the entire concept behind the pro-choice movement. To begin with, the term "pro-choice" is used only in reference to the abortion debate; as in whether a woman will have the "choice" to determine for herself if she will be able to have an abortion. It is not some all-encompassing ideology, therefore, we do not care what flavor of ice cream Baskin-Robbins carries and the implication that we should care is nothing but a rather weak attempt for him to fill out his copy requirement.

His lack of understanding is further shown when he suggested that Roe v. Wade should be done away with so citizens within a state could have the "choice" to make abortion legal or not where they live. Fact: Abortion is legal. Allowing states the option of outlawing abortion (and states such as Louisiana and Utah surely would) immediately takes away a woman's 'choice' over her own body. That is what the entire abortion debate is about; does a woman have the right to control her own body? We of the pro-choice majority say "Yes! Any other obvious questions?"

By claiming that pro-choice organizations fail to address the cause of abortions (unwanted pregnancies), Edward also demonstrates his complete lack of preparation in writing his article. Organizations such as NOW and Planned Parenthood, as well as many organizations on a local scale, have been for a long time pressing for improvements in combating teenage pregnancy, providing access to birth control for poor women through Medicare and Medicaid, providing better child support facilities at the work place, and providing improvements in the health care system. Even though these issues are all strong direct and indirect factors that influence a woman's decision to have an abortion, they are often contested by many of the same zealots who attack the clinics. These criminals at the clinics refuse to teach teenagers about sex and birth control, but then refuse to let a 13-year-old girl have an abortion when she becomes pregnant. Would somebody show me the logic?

It is also apparent that Edward has never made an attempt to discover what takes place in an abortion counseling session. Abortion is not presented as the only choice, but one of several choices. Choices which do include bringing the fetus to term and then keeping it or giving it up for adoption (a side note of interest, if the baby put up for adoption is of a non-white ethnicity, its chances of being adopted are much slimmer). In fact, I know of many "pro-choice" advocates who themselves are personally against abortion. Yet, they realize that not all women hold the same opinion and they understand that to outlaw abortion would destroy that individual choice from all women. That is why we call ourselves Pro-Choice. Mike Evers '95   Co-President, Harvard-Radcliffe Students for Choice