Ryan Phillips’ piece (“Why Riverton’s pro-life sanctuary resolution matters,” May 19) provides not only an interesting juxtaposition to Leonard Pitts’s column in the same issue (“The Republican Party working to repeal the 20th century”), but illustrates what’s lacking in the so-called right to life movement.

Phillips outlines examples of marches to freedom, apparently trying to equate the end of slavery (which was not “perpetuated for decades”; the first slave arrived in 1619) and women’s progression with protection for the unborn. He seems to feel that minorities and women have arrived and now the next civil rights action involves fetuses. This, despite the recent assaults on voting rights and the fact that women still earn less than men for the same or similar work.

What I don’t see in Phillips’ writing, or the Riverton City Council resolution, or any statement from anti-abortionists, is support for the women facing this decision.

The resolution didn’t include any mention of the need for safe, healthy, science-based information on sexuality. It didn’t suggest any resources for readily available contraceptives. It didn’t offer the names of groups that could help women regardless of outcome.

Until the message includes the full spectrum of women’s needs, it’s not pro-life. It’s repression.

Kay Denton, Salt Lake City