In recent weeks, many of the letters to the editor that have stated their support for President George W. Bush have focused on morals. An anti-choice stance is usually included within their values and the editorialists' position is rarely supported by more than a knee-jerk reaction to "killing babies." In the interest of rational dialogue, let me explain my pro-choice stance. I believe family planning is a fundamental women's right. There are also valid reasons, such as rape, incest, or health of the mother or fetus, which would make a woman wish to terminate the pregnancy. Moreover, I think overturning Roe v. Wade will have no effect on whether women will have abortions. They have been performed for centuries and the legality was no deterrent. Before they were legal, abortions in the U.S. disproportionately affected poor and minority women. An affluent family could afford to leave the country or pay an experienced practitioner to perform the procedure. However, the poorer people were forced to turn to "back alley" abortionists or rely on themselves. These illegal abortions were so unsafe they were responsible for 17 percent of all deaths in the U.S. due to pregnancy and childbirth (R.B. Gold, 1990). The ways to reduce the number of abortions is through access to contraceptives and education. Conservative initiatives, such as a ban on abortion or abstinence-only education (funded by Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Rick Santorum), are naïve and detrimental to women's health.