I am writing in response to the Oct. 13 Letter to the Editor: Restricting abortion is not restricting access to basic healthcare. This letter responded to the assertion of two future physicians that access to abortion is basic healthcare, and that reasons for seeking such medical care should not be considered “good” or “bad.” The Oct. 13 letter was problematic, and I was frustrated by its publication because it largely ignored the purpose and arguments of the future physicians, instead using the space to poorly state a personal opinion in a high-emotion block of text that included double negatives, logical fallacies, and, at best, a loose grasp on the basic principles of science and medicine.

Though I fully support their efforts to maintain an objective stance by publishing this dissenting opinion, the editors failed to recognize that the delivery of such opinions is of paramount importance. Men can and should be able to express opinions regarding the delivery of abortion care in the United States, and these male opinions are valuable contributions to the spectrum of thoughts that arise from our diverse society. However, the public debate of these opinions must be grounded in logic and fact, and I strongly disagree with the editor’s decision to make this poorly-elocuted student the public face of the dissenting opinion.

In an era where the desire to share an opinion has almost become a reflex, it is important for readers to hold up-and-coming-professional journalists to the quality standard upon which their profession was built. Especially with contentious topics such as abortion, I implore the editors to utilize more discretion when deciding whose voice to amplify to prevent the newspaper pages from turning into another version of my Twitter feed.

Thomas J Sorenson is a student at the University of Minnesota.

This letter to the editor has been lightly edited for style and clarity.