The title of David Moberg’s commentary last week, “Pregnant women need both education and services,” was grossly misleading. I agree with the title; women should be given education, support and options if they become pregnant and do not know what to do.

Dave supports this title with a strong statement toward the end that I completely agree with, but along the way, uses rhetoric that presents members of the pro-choice movement as baby killers (the word “infanticide” is used, which is in no way, shape or form a synonym for abortion; an infant is a born child) who promote promiscuity and irresponsibility. Instead of being a powerful piece to promote the noble ideas of one of his last paragraphs, it made me wonder how people like Dave get off making claims that are blatantly untrue.

First of all, there are a few problems with the “pro-life” movement. The biggest problem is the name, which insinuates that if you are not for this cause, you must be “pro-death.” Does that concept not seem almost laughable? Do members of the pro-choice movement truly mean to “indoctrinate women into believing that it is somehow their ‘right’ to terminate the lives of their children, because of the inconvenience or hardship that childrearing would impose on their lives?” No.

As a believer in pro-choice values, I am an advocate for the importance of women having sanctity over their own bodies. I would never suggest a woman have an abortion if there seemed to be another feasible option, but I find it completely unreasonable to make the decision for her. This comes to another problem with the pro-life movement: How in the world can any legislative body come up with a law that could encompass and rationalize all the reasons why or why not a woman (or person, for that matter) should have certain procedures done on or to her body? Why should this not be left to the individual? Oh, and I did have a laugh at “Roe v. Wade is an undeniably unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision.”

Undeniably unconstitutional? The forefathers knew amendments would need to be made to the Constitution, that’s why it has them. The Supreme Court is an entire branch dedicated to interpreting this document. The Constitution is open to interpretation and meant to be rewritten and enforced as seen fit. Dave Moberg, a sophomore at Northeastern University, does not understand this more than the Supreme Court justices who deliberated Roe v. Wade!

I thought Dave made an excellent point when he stated that women shouldn’t have to choose between school or a career and a child, and that there need to be more support and services for women who become pregnant without having planned on it. I would have commended and respected him if he hadn’t entered a ridiculous smear campaign, calling pro-choicers “infanticidal” maniacs who support unprotected, promiscuous sex because abortion is the best choice for women who become pregnant and don’t want to have a baby. This isn’t what the pro-choice movement is about, and he needs to take some time and get his facts straight if he’s going to get a respectable point across.

– Katie Vachon is a middler accounting major