NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48638

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 14.0 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48638 alt.abortion.inequity:5177 soc.women:19960 soc.men:19595 alt.feminism:4728
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!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]> <[e-mail]> <_3s1=[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:50:27 GMT
Lines: 313

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.

My only mistake was to fail to delete an attribution "line".
[Actually two lines, but one attribution.]  If you
care to read what I posted, you will have no trouble sorting things
out once you decide to ignore the attribution line that ends in >#.

[...]

>now you'll have to apologize to susan garvin too.

I'll do better than that, I'll show you the article so that you
may read it for the first time insted of relying on Susan Garvin's
account of what it contains, as you obviously did above.

Here goes:

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

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