NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48253

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 42.1 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48253 alt.abortion.inequity:5149 soc.women:19764 soc.men:19448 alt.feminism:4596
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!batcomputer!rpi!keegan
From: [e-mail] (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: compromise
Message-ID: <70w1g=[e-mail]>
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <_3s1=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:05:47 GMT
Lines: 994

[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->In <_3s1=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>peter honey, you just quoted someone other than susan
->>garvin as if the person you were quoting were susan
->>garvin. what you just did could be referred to as
->>forgery.

->Show me where I did that.

certainly. there are three posts appended in their
entirety. the first, <[e-mail]> is a
post by susan garvin which includes extensive quotes
from a person named greenfield.

the second is your reply to susan's post
<[e-mail]> where you
delete the attributions to greenfield and attribute
greenfield's words to susan garvin. simply stated, you
got caught faking quotes again.

the third included post is by susan garvin which points
out your dishonesty.

->>as i told you when you lied about adrienne regard
->>posting a forgery,

->I never *said* she posted a forgery.  What does ?!?!?!?!? mean to you?

stop lying peter. you said it. many, many people saw
your lie and called you on it. no one really expects to
to actually apologize imo. they just like beating you
up because you were too stupid to do so.

->I never lied about adrienne.

you're lying again peter.

=======begin included posts==================

>From talk.abortion Sat Nov  7 22:34:21 1992
Xref: rpi talk.abortion:98643 alt.abortion.inequity:3103 soc.women:46471 soc.men:51245 alt.feminism:3843
Path: rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!garvin
From: [e-mail] (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: compromise
Summary: The Reverend requests a walk down memory lane
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:44:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxDM9o.178.2
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News System)
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 548
Nntp-Posting-Host: satan.cimds.ri.cmu.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <[e-mail]>
#[e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:


[The Reverend Holtsinger's altered quote from Roe v. Wade deleted]

#This quote from Roe v. Wade is completely consistent with my
#documentation showing that Roe is unrestricted abortion-on-
#demand throughout the term of pregnancy.  A woman's ability to
#obtain an abortion is dependent upon the availability of a
#physician who's willing to perform the abortion (see following
#quote).  Ms. Garvin seems to be completely unable to address
#any of the four sources I provided in support of my statements.

I didn't address Reverend Holtsinger's quotes because I haven't
had time to go check them to see just what he altered.  Holtsinger
has shown time and time again that he is incapable of accurately
reproducing other people's words.

Since he is also incapable of understanding the meaning of "on
demand," I really shouldn't bother refuting him.  However,
Since the Reverend insists on discussing the availability
of late term abortions under Roe once again, I thought that
I'd reproduce the following article.  The first time that
Reverend Holtsinger tried to argue this issue, he posted
his version of Tushnet's opinion.  (I looked up the source,
and I found that he had made unmarked deletions.)  Undaunted,
Holtsinger continued to argue the point, and surprisingly,
continued to quote out of context to support his argument.

["quote" from Tushnet deleted]

The following included text is from article
<[e-mail]> written by
[e-mail] (J. S. Greenfield).

/begin included text/


With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug
Holtsinger writes:

#First I'd like to present my sources, and then I will address
#the points that you raised. My claim is that Roe v. Wade
#essentially constitutes abortion on demand throughout the term
#of pregnancy due to the broad definition of "health" given
#by the Supreme Court.
#
#Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton must be read together:

As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two
cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot
assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the
"life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.

Every objective indication supports this contention.

That you continue to state my position as one in which Roe and Doe are
not to be "read together" is simply a feeble attempt by yourself to cast
my argument into a form which you figure you can easily attack.

That Roe and Doe are to be read together is not in question.  I have
stated that every time you repeat the lie that I have said otherwise.

And *you* still refuse to reconcile the *obvious* contradiction between
your "reading" of Doe and Roe together, and the explicit statements of
Roe, Doe and Colautti.

And it is *your* argument that suggests that Doe should be read to mean
that the entire three-stage framework or Roe is meaningless.


#Even ignoring Doe v. Bolton, however, the language in Roe
#concerning the definition of the term "health" is consistent
#with the broad definition given in Doe:
#
#   ----
#
#  "The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant
#   woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.  Specific
#   and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy
#   may be involved.  Maternity, or additional offspring, may
#   force upon the woman a distressful life and future.
#   Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical
#   health may be taxed by child care.   There is also the
#   distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
#   child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into
#   a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise,
#   to care for it.  In other cases, as in this one, the
#   additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed
#   motherhood may be involved.  All these are factors the
#   woman and her responsible physician necessarily will
#   consider in consultation."
#
#   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 177 (1973)

Did you really believe that this pathetic lie would pass unscathed?

Why didn't you also cite the paragraph that *immediately* follows in the
Roe opinion?

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

This alone destroys your entire argument.  But just in case anyone is
interested in the remainder of the paragraph:

"Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in
regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to
support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is
unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also
acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right
is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly assert important
interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and
in protecting potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these
respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain
regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.  The
privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.  In
fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some *amici* that
one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a
close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the
Court's decisions.  The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited
right of this kind in the past. [citations omitted]"


In short, this shows that

  1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,

  and

  2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
     quotes out of context--he just plain lies.


#  "I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
#   the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit
#   the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of
#   pregnant women, using the term health in its broadest medical
#   context."
#
#   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 185 (1973)

Actually, this is from a single concurring opinion by Justice Burger
which applies to both Roe and Doe.  And once again, you have
(conveniently) neglected to include an important statement (the
concluding statement, in this case!) which contradicts your position:

"Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution
requires abortion on demand."

How many lies can you include in a single post?


#  "The vicissitudes of life produce pregnancies which may be unwanted,
#   or which may impair ``health'' in the broad Vuitch sense of the
#   term, of which may imperil the life of the mother, or which in
#   the full setting of the case may create such suffering, dislocations,
#   misery, or tragedy as to make an early abortion the only civilized
#   step to take.  These hardships may be properly embraced in the
#   ``health'' factor of the mother as appraised by a person of
#   insight.  Or they may be part of a broader medical judgement
#   based upon what is ``appropriate'' in a given case, though
#   perhaps not ``necessary'' in a strict sense."
#
#   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 190 (1973)

Perhaps one more?  I cannot find this quote *anywhere* in the Roe
opinions (based upon the reprints of the majority opinion by Blackmun,
the concurring opinion of Stewart and the dissenting opinion of
Rehnquist in the US Civil Rights Commission report.

But I did just find a few other interesting quotes!

Earlier, you cited from Roe:

"In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in
one of the modern abortion statutes are considered.  That opinion and
this one, of course, are to be read together."

What you failed to include, once again, was the *very next* paragraph:

"This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the
respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical
and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the
profound problems of the present day.  The decision leaves the State
free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of
pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to
recognize state interests."

You just can't keep those fibs from coming out of your keyboard, can
you?


Here's another quote from Roe that demonstrates the distinction between
the Court's treatment of the three distinct phases of pregnancy:

"Measured against these standards, Art. 1106 of the Texas Penal Code, in
restricting legal abortions to those 'procured or attempted by medical
advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,' sweeps too
broadly.  The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed
early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single
reason, 'saving' the mother's life, the legal justification for the
procedure.  The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional
attack made upon it here."



#The following six authors support my argument that Roe and Doe
#give a broad interpretation to the term "health":

And I'm sure that all have are as credible as *you*!


#  "In Roe and in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), the
#   Supreme Court has held that the term `health'' includes both the
#   physical and mental condition of the mother."
#
#   26 Vanderbilt Law Review at 829 (1973), Mark B, Anderson et al,
#   "Abortion after Roe and Doe: A Proposed Statute"

This does not even support your position!

There is no question that a serious threat to the mother's *mental*
health is covered by the "life or health" provision in Roe regarding the
third trimester.  The Court has never confused this with the expansive
treatment of "health" with regard to the first-trimester.

Only *you* and your so-called scholarly sources have been confused on
this point.

I pointed this out in my last post, but you ignore it, as usual.


#   "Summary and Analysis of State Laws Relating to Abortion",
#   Barbara Kaiser, Harriet F. Pilpel, and Eve W. Paul,
#   in Family Planning, Contraception, Voluntary Sterilization
#   and Abortion: An Analysis of Laws and Policies in the United
#   States, Each State and Jurisdiction.
#
#   A Report of the Office for Family Planning
#   Health Services Administration
#   U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
#   1978
#
#   Prepared by the Alan Guttmacher Institute
#
#
#  "The landmark events in establishing the basic law governing abortion
#   in the United States were the January 1973 decisions of the United
#   States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade[1] and Doe v. Bolton[2]. [...]
#
#   The Roe and Doe decisions have these results:  [...]
#
#   (3) After the fetus is viable, a State may regulate in its interest,
#   even to the extent of prohibiting abortion unless to save the life
#   or health (including the mental health) of the woman. [...]
#
#   Roe and Doe held the right to abortion to be a fundamental right,
#   but the decisions also involved the medical profession in the
#   decision-making process. A corollary is that a woman's decision
#   to exercise her rights is in part dependent on the availability
#   of health institutions and professionals willing to perform
#   abortions."

How do you think this supports your position?!

This says only that health professionals cannot be *forced* to perform
an abortion that they do not feel is indicated.  It is incumbent upon
the woman to find a physician who is willing to perform the abortion.



#   _A Lawyer Looks at Abortion_, Lynn D. Wardle and Mary Anne Q. Wood,
#   Brigham Young University Press, 1982, pp. 137--138.

I checked--this reference should be to pps. 133-134.


#  "The Supreme Court has defined health in some contexts to include ``all
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#   factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's
#   age--relevant to the well-being of the patient[50]''. If the post-
                                                          ^^
#   viability abortion is performed because it is ``necessary'' to avoid
#   the burdens that pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood would place
#   on a woman's emotional and psychological health, could not her doctor
#   assume that it would be better if a method were chosen and every step
#   taken during the abortion itself to insure that the fetus did not
#   survive[51]?

[remainder omitted]

Does not this argument, coupled with the fact that the Court *has*
upheld the right of a State to require protections for the viable fetus
(just not those in the statute of Colautti--see Planned Parenthood of
Kansas City v. Ashcroft) suggest that post-viable abortion are *not* one
of the contexts to which the broad definition of health cited above?!


#This last quote is from a professor of law named Lynn D. Wardle,
#who appears to be the same person that you quote in one of your
#sources.  It appears that this particular author has held conflicting
#opinions on Roe v. Wade, since the opinion above does not match
#the opinion which you quote.

This is rather interesting.  I note that there are actually two authors
of the aforementioned source, and that the following quote from the
source (which was published a year after the source I used):

"A state desiring to protect its interest in the potential life of a
viable fetus should accept the Supreme Court's invitation to prohibit
any post-viability abortion unless it is necessary to preserve the life
or health of the pregnant woman.  Nearly half of the states presently
conform to the standard.

"In many states, the exception to the prohibition of post-viability
abortions is allowed only to prevent death or 'permanent impairment,'
'imminent peril,' 'severe and long-lasting,' or other variously
described threats to the woman's health.  The judicial sustainability of
such descriptions is questionable, as they appear to require something
more than the necessary preservation of health.  But given the fact that
a broad reading of the 'health' exception would subvert the state's
constitutional right to prohibit post-viability abortion, such efforts
are commendable and should be upheld."

is very telling.  First of all, the quote demonstrates the fact that,
the practice of post-viability abortion laws simply does not support
your argument.  Furthermore, it demonstrates that the authors are
stating their own conjecture in this source.

Most importantly, there is a dramatic contrast between the objective
tone (or at least, not blatantly-biased tone) of the first source, which
I cited, and the blatant pro-life bias in the above statements.

This latter source smacks of someone who has gotten "religion" and has
abandoned scholarly research for political partisanism.


#You have provided a single source
#from this author which supports your argument, and none of your
#other sources support your argument.  I think you need to resolve
#the conflicting opinions given by this particular author before
#your argument can be given any credence at all.

See above.  Perhaps you could argue that we should be very careful in
evaluating the author's earlier work.

However, even those portions of the argument presented in my earlier
post that are based upon the author's earlier work are clear, reasoned,
and have not been attacked in *substance* by anything you have said.

That position is supported by the *explicit* statements of the Court in
the cases of Roe, Doe and Colautti.

That position is also supported by absence of any mention of your
extreme and absurd position in three major constitutional law texts (S.
Goldman, Braveman and Banks, and Rossum and Tarr), as well as one source
devoted to abortion (Drucker).


#There is one Federal court case that is also relevant.
#In Margaret S. v. Edwards, a Federal district court struck
#down a Louisiana abortion statute which only allowed post-
#viability abortions necessary to prevent "permanent impairment"
#to the mother's health.

#  "Roe provides that the State, because of its legitimate interest
#   in potential life, may regulate and even forbid abortions after
#   a fetus becomes viable, ``except when it is necessary to
#   preserve the life or health of the mother.'' Roe, 410 U.S.
#   at 164, 93 S.Ct. at 732.  The first sentence of ... [a section
#   of the Louisiana abortion statute] while appearing to follow
#   the guidelines set forth in Roe, uses the phrase ``to prevent
#   permanent impairment to her health.'' This is not the same
#   standard articulated in Roe, preservation of maternal
#   health. [...] The Court finds that the requirement of
#   permanent impairment impermissibly restricts the meaning
#   of Roe."
#
#   Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. at 196 (1980)


A "permanent impairment" and a *serious* threat to health are not
synonymous phrases.  There are many *serious* conditions that may heal
in time.  This quote does *not* support your contention that there is
only a single 'health' standard defined by Roe to apply to abortion in
all phases of pregnancy.

Furthermore, even if the lower court ruling *did* support your position,
it would be rather strange to suggest that we should appeal to lower
court rulings to draw conclusions that contradict the *explicit*
statements of the Supreme Court.


So, it turns out that four of your "six sources" do not support your
position!


-------------------

## [... Doe v. Bolton ...]
## In its opinion, the SC
## ruled that the use of the term "health," within the *Georgia
## statute*, could be interpreted broadly enough to comply with
## the first trimester rights recognized in Roe.
#
#That is not correct.  The original Georgia statute gave the
#following exception for abortion:
#
#  "(1) A continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of
#   the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure
#   her health;"
#
#   Doe v. Bolton, 410 US at 202 (1973)
#
#That restriction cannot be read broadly enough to comply with
#the "first trimester rights" in Roe, which is abortion on demand.

Since the *original* statute did not come before the Supreme Court, this
is totally irrelevant.  This provision of the statute had already been
struck and removed by a lower court, and was not considered by the
Court.


## [...]
## Doe v. Bolton, specifically, did *not* discuss, suggest or
## intend that the interpretation of the term "health" in the
## context of the Georgia statute was to be used as the
## interpretation of "health" with respect to the exceptions
## required by Roe for post-viability abortion prohibitions.
#
#Roe and Doe must be read together, so your statement is
#not correct.
#
#  "That opinion [Doe v. Bolton] and this one, of course,
#   are to be read together."
#
#   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 184 (1973)

More quotes out of context (plain lies!).  See the statements that
immediately followed this, cited earlier in this post.

You don't seem to understand what it means to read two things together.
I suppose that if the Court had stated in Doe that "The woman wanting
the abortion has blonde hair" you would assert that this must be read
with Roe to mean that *Jane Roe* had blonde hair!


# [...]
# In fact, while Mr. Holtsinger has claimed that my earlier
# post suggested that Roe and Doe were inconsistent, it is his
# *own* argument that actually suggests this, by suggesting
# the Roe's extensive framework, distinguishing between the
# first, second, and third stages of pregnancy, was overruled
# by the companion Doe decision handed down at the same time.

No, that's not correct.  The Court upheld a lower court's
ruling on the broad definition of the term "health", which
did not conflict with Roe in any manner. None of the opinion
given in Doe conflicts with Roe.


[Lots of stuff about my sources omitted.]

#Also, I've given you 6 independent sources which agree with
#one another, and they conflict with your single source.

This is simply not true--though I doubt it is important, since I have no
doubt that you could easily find 100 sources to support your position--I
just doubt that they would be very credible.  (I'll have to see to
believe.)


#In summary, you have one source which supports your claims,
#but the author gives conflicting claims in another source.

This is not true either.  But even if we assume that all of my direct
sources can not be relied upon, and must be independently verified, you
have presented *nothing* to dispute the substance of the argument I
present, or the many citations from Supreme Court opinions which are
*not* taken out of context (unlike yours) and which EXPLICITLY REJECT
YOUR CLAIMS!


[Loads of statements saying "That's irrelevant" omitted.]

#Are you now claiming that Roe and Doe must be read together?
#Thank you for agreeing with me.

I have *never* said the opposite.  Only *you* have claimed that I did.


#I've given you 6 independent sources which support my argument.
#The only support for your argument comes from an author who has
#written conflicting opinions on Roe and Doe.  This same author
#has written an opinion which supports my argument.  You need
#to resolve this conflict before your argument can be given
#any support whatsoever.

Once again, you have not.

Additionally, the fact that the author of an argument appears to have,
later, changed her opinions does *not* suggest that you may toss aside
that argument without *any* substantive response.

The argument stands on its own--it does not miraculously disappear if
the author stops supporting it.

This particular argument is *very* convincing, as far as I am concerned,
and is very strongly supported by the explicit statements of the Court.

You, on the other hand, seem to be able to support your argument only by
perpetrating plain *lies*, by consistently quoting from Court opinions
out of context.

You also refuse to substantively address the main facets of my argument,
probably because you are unable to do so.


In sum, your last post proves that you cannot be trusted to honestly
represent facts, and as such, you have no credibility.

My earlier suspicion that you are unable to distinguish your political
opinions from your "study" of the actual law has been confirmed in
spades.  You shamefully lie to support your arguments.

As such, I shall not bother to respond to any further arguments put
forth by yourself, unless, by some shocking turn of events, you appear
to have made a faithful attempt to refute the *substance* of my
arguments.

I do not have any more time to waste on this meaningless "dialog."


--
J. S. Greenfield                                         [e-mail]
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"


/end included text/

Susan




>From talk.abortion Sat Nov 14 08:07:27 1992
Xref: rpi talk.abortion:99385 alt.abortion.inequity:3243 soc.women:46951 soc.men:51640 alt.feminism:4323
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Path: rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!stanford.edu!hubcap!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: compromise
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:02:17 GMT
Lines: 280

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>#In article <[e-mail]>
>#[e-mail] (Susan Garvin) writes:

>I didn't address Reverend Holtsinger's quotes because I haven't
>had time to go check them to see just what he altered.  Holtsinger
>has shown time and time again that he is incapable of accurately
>reproducing other people's words.

Garvin, on the other hand, seems to be incapable of summarizing
what other people wrote, such as my post MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION AND THE
5-WEEK LIMIT.

>Since he is also incapable of understanding the meaning of "on
>demand,"

He is incapable of agreeing with Garvin's understanding of these words.
Not the same thing at all.

 I really shouldn't bother refuting him.  However,
>Since the Reverend insists on discussing the availability
>of late term abortions under Roe once again, I thought that
>I'd reproduce the following article.  The first time that
>Reverend Holtsinger tried to argue this issue, he posted
>his version of Tushnet's opinion.  (I looked up the source,
>and I found that he had made unmarked deletions.)  Undaunted,
>Holtsinger continued to argue the point, and surprisingly,
>continued to quote out of context to support his argument.

>["quote" from Tushnet deleted]

Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.  I move that networkers
disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked deletions" by Ms. Garvin
until she shows where these were made and what they were [or at least
a sample].

>With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug
>Holtsinger writes:          ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>#First I'd like to present my sources, and then I will address
>#the points that you raised. My claim is that Roe v. Wade
>#essentially constitutes abortion on demand throughout the term
>#of pregnancy due to the broad definition of "health" given
>#by the Supreme Court.
>#
>#Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton must be read together:

>As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two
>cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot
>assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the
>"life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.

As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
above.

>Every objective indication supports this contention.

The above sentence is rendered vacuous by the omission of all objective
indications from the post to which I am following up.  The best she can
do is show that *some* of Doug's quotes are *consistent* with her
contention.

>That Roe and Doe are to be read together is not in question.  I have
>stated that every time you repeat the lie that I have said otherwise.

I don't recall such a "lie".  All I see above is Doug saying that the
two need to be read together.  In this he agrees with Justice Blackmun,
who said the same thing, but it cannot be assumed that every reader
of talk.abortion is aware of this fact.


>#Even ignoring Doe v. Bolton, however, the language in Roe
>#concerning the definition of the term "health" is consistent
>#with the broad definition given in Doe:
>#
>#   ----
>#
>#  "The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant
>#   woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.  Specific
>#   and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy
>#   may be involved.  Maternity, or additional offspring, may
>#   force upon the woman a distressful life and future.
>#   Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical
>#   health may be taxed by child care.   There is also the
>#   distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
>#   child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into
>#   a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise,
>#   to care for it.  In other cases, as in this one, the
>#   additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed
>#   motherhood may be involved.  All these are factors the
>#   woman and her responsible physician necessarily will
>#   consider in consultation."
>#
>#   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 177 (1973)

>Did you really believe that this pathetic lie would pass unscathed?

Which pathetic lie?  Ms. Garvin is so fond of the word "lie", she does
not always stop to ask herself what she is referring to.

>Why didn't you also cite the paragraph that *immediately* follows in the
>Roe opinion?

>"On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
>argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
>terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
>whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

OK, but we will shortly see an indication that the above paragraph
is "mere shallow rhetoric" from Justice Burger, in *Thornburgh*.

[Long quote along the same general lines omitted.]

>In short, this shows that

>  1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,

>  and

>  2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
>     quotes out of context--he just plain lies.

The above is *definitely* mere shallow rhetoric on Ms. Garvin's part.

>#  "I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
>#   the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit
>#   the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of
>#   pregnant women, using the term health in its broadest medical
>#   context."
>#
>#   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 185 (1973)

>Actually, this is from a single concurring opinion by Justice Burger
>which applies to both Roe and Doe.  And once again, you have
>(conveniently) neglected to include an important statement (the
>concluding statement, in this case!) which contradicts your position:

>"Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution
>requires abortion on demand."

>How many lies can you include in a single post?

I don't know, Susan, how many lies did Chief Justice Burger put into his
dissenting *Thornburgh* opinion?

>From 476 US at 782-785:

    ...In short, every member of the *Roe* court rejected the idea of
    abortion on demand.  The Court's opinion today, however, plainly
    undermines that important principle, and I regretfully conclude
    that some of the concerns of the dissenting Justices in *Roe*,
    as well as the concerns I expressed in my separate opinion,
    have now been realized.

    [in a footnote:] The Court's astounding rationale for this holding
    is that such information [about the medical risks of abortion]
    might have the effect of "discouraging abortion", *ante*, at 762,
    as though abortion is something to be advocated and encouraged.

    ...We have apparently already passed the point at which abortion
    is available merely on demand.  If the statute at issue here is
    to be invalidated, the "demand" will not even be the result of
    an informed choice.
        The Court in *Roe* further recognized that the State
    "has still *another* important and legitimate interest" which
    is "separate and distinct" from the interest in protecting
    maternal health, i.e., an interest in "protecting the potentiality
    of human life." *Ibid*. The point at which these interests become
    "compelling" under *Roe* is at viability of the fetus. *Id,* at
    163.  Today, however, the Court abandons that standard and
    renders the solemnly stated concerns of the 1973 *Roe* opinion
    for the interests of the states mere shallow rhetoric.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[...]

>But I did just find a few other interesting quotes!

>"This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the
>respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical
>and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the
>profound problems of the present day.  The decision leaves the State
>free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of
>pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to
>recognize state interests."

In the light of Burger's remarks, the above quote would also seem
to be mere shallow rhetoric, along with Ms. Garvin's comment:

>You just can't keep those fibs from coming out of your keyboard, can
>you?

>Here's another quote from Roe that demonstrates the distinction between
>the Court's treatment of the three distinct phases of pregnancy:

>"Measured against these standards, Art. 1106 of the Texas Penal Code, in
>restricting legal abortions to those 'procured or attempted by medical
>advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,' sweeps too
>broadly.  The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed
>early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single
>reason, 'saving' the mother's life, the legal justification for the
>procedure.  The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional
>attack made upon it here."

And Rehnquist, in his dissent to *Roe*, pointed out that it had never
been revealed what the gestational age of the *Roe* fetus was, and so
these solemn pronouncements about the entire 9 months were, according
to him, out of order.

>#The following six authors support my argument that Roe and Doe
>#give a broad interpretation to the term "health":
>
>And I'm sure that all have are as credible as *you*!

I'll take Doug over Susan any day where credibility is concerned.

>#  "The Supreme Court has defined health in some contexts to include ``all
>                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>#   factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's
>#   age--relevant to the well-being of the patient[50]''. If the post-
>                                                          ^^
>#   viability abortion is performed because it is ``necessary'' to avoid
>#   the burdens that pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood would place
>#   on a woman's emotional and psychological health, could not her doctor
>#   assume that it would be better if a method were chosen and every step
>#   taken during the abortion itself to insure that the fetus did not
>#   survive[51]?

>[remainder omitted]

>Does not this argument, coupled with the fact that the Court *has*
>upheld the right of a State to require protections for the viable fetus
>(just not those in the statute of Colautti--see Planned Parenthood of
>Kansas City v. Ashcroft) suggest that post-viable abortion are *not* one
>of the contexts to which the broad definition of health cited above?!

Let's listen again to Burger in *Thornburgh*, in a rare moment of
sarcasm:

    ...Undoubtedly the Pennsylvania Legislature added the second-
    physician requirement on the mistaken assumption that this
    Court meant what it said in *Roe* concerning the "compelling
    interest" of the states in potential life after viability.

[Pre-Thornburgh quotes by Wardle omitted.]

>This latter source smacks of someone who has gotten "religion" and has
>abandoned scholarly research for political partisanism.

I wonder whether Chief Justice Burger also "got religion".  If so, I
humbly submit that it was the right one, and I applaud the closing
statement in his *Thornburgh* dissent:

       In discovering constitutional infirmities in state regulations
    of abortion that are in accord with our history and tradition,
    we may have lured judges into "roaming at large in the
    constitutional field. [Citation omitted.]  The soundness of our
    holdings must be tested by the decisions that purport to follow
    them.  If *Danforth* and today's holding really mean what they
    seem to say, I agree that we should reexamine *Roe*.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course, *Webster* restored some of the rights of states to protect
fetuses after viability, but Blackmun, architect of *Roe*, came out with
one of the most venomous dissents I have ever read, against the *Webster*
plurality, and the judges that still remained of the infamous "Roe Seven"
joined him in dissenting.


>I do not have any more time to waste on this meaningless "dialog."

So, now I have made it a "trialog".  Let's see if Susan brands it
"meaningless" too.

Peter Nyikos




>From talk.abortion Sat Nov 14 16:21:25 1992
Path: rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!garvin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: compromise
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Susan Garvin)
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 16:54:02 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News System)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Holtsinger refuted
Nntp-Posting-Host: satan.cimds.ri.cmu.edu
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
#In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
##
## Typical.  She makes allegations of the unreliability of the quote, does
## not give her own quote, deletes Doug's quote.  I move that networkers
## disregard such claims as "he had made unmarked deletions" by Ms. Garvin
## until she shows where these were made and what they were [or at least
## a sample].
#
#Considering your inability to figure out who said what in
#a posting, your comments on anyone else's deletions or posting
#behavior is highly suspect to say the least.  In fact, given
#your history, there is a presumption that what you say about
#anyone's quotes or deletions is incorrect.

Indeed.  Read on.

#Oh, and can you please explain why you think Susan shouldn't
#b eallowed to delete material from a posting?  She explains her
#reasons for the deletions and it is a reasonable explanation
#and the deletions are practical.

I think that little Peter would like to force us all to rehash
old arguments just because he wasn't here to see them the
first time.  I think that most people remember when Holtsinger
started posting doctored quotes, and the complete quotes that
others posted to prove the Reverend's dishonesty.  Petey Honey
will just have to live with the fact that he is still a newbie.

#I think Dr Giggles is back doing his "I'll just attack
#my opponents for no good reason" game again.  He made an ass
#of himself with Adrienne and now he has an urge to make an
#ass of himself with Susan.

Since he's incapable of presenting a logical arguement, or
posting factual material, and he feels compelled to post
anyway, what other option does he have besides baseless
attacks?

#I suspect that Nyikos isn't really teaching mathematics.  I
#think he's the NCSU Professor of Making an Ass of One's Self.
#In that regard, he holds th epost with great distinction.

I wonder if djr is an alum in this program.

## As far as I can see, this unsupported allegation ["you cannot assume..."]
## by Ms. Garvin is her sole support for her word "*completely*" highlighted
## above.
#
#Oh, and there is much more support for it than that.  The fact
#that actual practice supports Susan's statement is pretty good
#support.  As always, Peter, you prefer wild speculations such
#as Doug's, to the facts.

Well, actually, Dean, it's worse than that.  I didn't make the
statement in question.  J.S. Greenfield did.  Dr. Giggles deleted
the reference line, and then he replied to the rest of the
article as if I had written it.  I'm not sure if he was afraid
that he had retained a shred of credibility after his wrongful
attack on Adrienne and wanted to complete the job, or if he
is so stupid as to think that people wouldn't notice his
deletions.  It's pretty funny, considering that he complains
about my deletions in his text, but it's typical of him and
his buddies.  I got quite a laugh out of it.

Susan

--
Have you noticed that all you need to grow healthy, vigorous grass is a
crack in your sidewalk?
========end included posts=============