Why Roe v. Wade must go

IN "THE fate of Roe v. Wade and choice" (Op-ed, Sept. 14), Cass Sunstein writes, "Roe v. Wade has been established law for 35 years; the right to choose is now a part of our culture. A decision to overrule it would . . . disrupt and polarize the nation." He also appeals to the principle of stare decicis - that the Supreme Court should generally respect its own precedents - as a reason to keep Roe intact.

Sunstein seems to be saying that we should keep abortion legal simply because it has been with us a long time. Would he say that we should have kept slavery because it was with us 200 years (and was ensconced in our culture)? Should we keep racism now because it's "part of our culture"? Stare decisis is a useful but not infallible principle. With Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created abortion virtually on demand, for any reason or no reason. It should overturn Roe v. Wade for the same reason it overturned its precedents on slavery. Because abortion on demand is wrong.

NORMUND STRAUTIN
Chelsea