August 11 Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

The Supreme Court decree eliminating a constitutional right to privacy and bodily autonomy for women and the Texas Legislature banning abortion were myopic and cruel acts based on a myth that the only acceptable purpose of sexual behavior is to produce more babies. Obviously, that’s not the case. Perhaps the most important function of sexual behavior is affectionate bonding, which enhances relationships and strengthens families. Billions of sex acts only rarely result in pregnancy, and it’s estimated that between 30-50% of pregnancies naturally fail to result in a birth. 

In 50 years of service to the Big Bend area, my father, Dr. W.E. Lockhart, cared for many women through their pregnancies and attended countless births. He cared for many with miscarriages or who suffered unsafe, illegal abortions and helped them recover to have and raise other children. For him, pregnancy wasn’t the miracle, birth was, and the true miracle workers were the mothers who brought that about. Nature (or God, if you prefer) gave to women the responsibility to bring about the miracle, because it is they who bear great risk to their health and welfare. The choice must be theirs. So, if we would save babies, first help mothers. That’s how we actually get more healthy babies and save more lives. Pro-women, pro-choice is the real pro-life. 

Bloomberg News published an article August 8: “A Very Dangerous Place to Be Pregnant Is Getting Even Scarier,” with the subtitle “Texas leads the U.S. in maternity ward closures, and nowhere is this more of an issue than in the western part of the state.” The article is about Alpine and the Big Bend area. Medicaid pays for 42% of births, yet Texas banned abortion instead of expanding Medicaid to get women proper maternity care. This, not immigration, is our real crisis.

Mary Bell Lockhart



Dear Editor,


Wonder School Marfa would like to thank those who came out in support of our recent open house. The refreshment donations we received from Frama and our parent community were especially generous. Our team enthusiastically looks forward to providing an alternative path for school-age children this year, and in the years to come! 

With gratitude,

Kristal Cuevas



Dear Editor,

The plan for a new MHS seems ill-advised. Marfa is a small town with few jobs, and without new jobs, no new students will attend. The cost is monumental. Why not repair the old school? That makes more sense than demolishing the existing structure, and repair could occur in stages. 

Marfa is also a poor town. Higher taxes will be difficult for many families to pay. I would like to know who is pushing this project. It seems to me that something new is always being built. And I am certain the current structures are not full. I wish you would write an opinion piece laying out the issues.   

One final concern: if the school district defaults on the bonds, recovery may be impossible. Once the credit rating is gone, how could Marfa ever get it back?

Elizabeth Tebeaux

College Station, TX