Last week the Globe featured articles relating to pre-Roe v. Wade antiabortion restrictions embedded within Chapter 112 of the Massachusetts General Laws (“Pre-Roe abortion ban in Mass. still on the books,’’ Metro, July 2; “Groups act to delete old abortion ban in Mass.,’’ Page A1, July 5). As the articles point out, while these have been unenforceable for decades, and while our state constitution and previous Massachusetts court decisions might protect women in the event of the Supreme Court overruling Roe, why take a chance, and why have these restrictions not been deleted in all these intervening years?

I asked those questions years ago when, in 1990, I graduated from law school and again when I acted as counsel for minor-aged women seeking to obtain judicial permission to have an abortion without parental consent. The worry that I was not supposed to entertain has now reached a critical juncture.

While previous conservative Massachusetts legislatures would not have voted to repeal these onerous statutes, we are now in a different, urgent place. Section 12L of Chapter 112, for example, states that only a physician may perform an abortion, meaning a surgical procedure, which was then the only method available. Advanced procedures for terminating an unplanned pregnancy have expanded, from the morning-after pill to medical (or chemical) abortion. In addition, a woman utilizing a medical option might be instructed by a physician assistant or nurse practitioner.

That legal ambiguity is obvious but was not considered in the Globe articles. So it makes it even more imperative for our Legislature (the Senate voted to repeal the old laws; the House must follow) and for the governor to act decisively and quickly and obviate the need for future uncertainty and litigation.

Barbara L. Cullen

Watertown