Dear Editor,

Ours is not a theocracy. Ours is a representative democracy. Our nation was founded, in part, in response to the religious tyranny experienced by its new citizens in the countries from which they’d fled. Thus, commitment to the “separation of church and state” was vital. This meant our nation would never establish a national church nor show preference for any one religion.

Our 1st Amendment not only protects speech, it also protects four other rights, among them religious liberty. It begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”  Respect for religious liberty is even more critical today than it was in 1787, as our nation is now vastly more diverse. 

Which brings me to the topic of abortion.

When and under what circumstances abortion should be legal is a highly nuanced and contentious issue. For the religion of my mother, an embryo was to be protected absolutely from the moment of conception. It was believed, too, that the prohibition against direct abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason should not just be a personal religious/moral decision, but legally prohibited for all--regardless of the embryo’s or fetus’s viability, regardless of the threat to the mother’s life,  and regardless of an individual’s religious convictions. 

The dilemma for me as a citizen is whether my own personal religious beliefs, and/or those of my mother, should be imposed on everyone else regardless of their own theology. Personally, I think not, absolutely.   

Denise Fazio, Ed.D., 
Boulder County