Sir, – There are many flaws in Maureen Dowd's article "US supreme court's churchly ethos threatens freedom" (World, May 16th). She laments that "five or six people in lifelong unaccountable jobs are about to impose their personal views".
But isn’t that what happened when Roe v Wade was imposed originally? Is the supreme court system objectionable only when you don’t like the outcome? The reversal of Roe v Wade doesn’t ban abortion; it sends the matter for decision to the individual states and their democratically elected representatives. If Maureen Dowd has a problem with the unaccountable judges making such decisions, surely she should be in favour of the decision being passed to representatives who are elected, accountable and not in position for life? Again it seems that any system will do if it provides the decision she agrees with, and any system that doesn’t is to be lambasted.
She regrets the anti-Catholic prejudice of the past as she experienced it in her own family. I’d suggest she should reflect on whether her own rhetoric, such as “corona of religious fervour” and “churchly ethos”, might contribute to the modern manifestation of this prejudice. – Yours, etc,