To the editor:
This week’s political telephone survey caller asked me the age old question, “Would you support abortion to save the life of the mother?” 
When I explained to her the question is a smokescreen used to justify abortion, she seemed quite surprised.
Let me explain.
Yes, there are cases when the baby has to be taken early to save the life of the mother, but in all of these cases those performing the procedure can try to save the life of the baby as well. There are no medical cases when the life of the child must be destroyed to save the life of the mother.
Before Dr. C Everett Koop became surgeon general under President Ronald Reagan, I had the opportunity to hear him speak. He shared with us that while speaking to a group of more than 2,000 obstetricians and pediatricians he asked if any of them ever had a case when they had to destroy the life of the baby to save a mother’s life.
Not one in the 2,000 ever had such a case. Yes, these doctors had cases when they had to take the baby early for the sake of the mother.  But, in all cases they could try to save the baby as well.
Sometimes, due to serious medical conditions, the baby could not be saved. But, they could always try to save both lives — the mother and the baby.
Abortion always destroys the life of the baby. Medical science has long past the days when deliberately destroying the baby is ever necessary to save the mother’s life.
Some small percentage of the time the child may not survive. But, always the doctors can seek to save the child.
This smokescreen of destroying a baby's life to save the mother needs to be aborted from intelligent thinking.

Steve Casey
Stonewall, La.