NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/49083

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 5.1 KB | 119 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:06:53 GMT
Lines: 108

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>
>>[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>>[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>>> Abortions can be legally performed all the way up to the
>>>>> point of birth for virtually any reason.
>
>>>> This is a lie.
>
>>> No, it's the truth: abortions can be legally performed all the
>>> way up to the point of birth for virtually any reason.  The
>>> four sources which I provided prove this fact.

Wrong. The sources you provided prove only that post-viability abortions
done for the woman's >>HEALTH<< are constitutionally protected, Doug.

Clue time:

    "Health reasons" != "virtually any reason"

>> The some 30 states with laws restricting abortion iin the
>> third trimester prove you incorrect.
>
>No, it only proves that some states have laws on the books
>which are unconstitutional.  Many states have failed to
>remove their old abortion laws after Roe v. Wade was
>handed down.  The existence of a law doesn't mean that
>the law can be enforced without being challenged.

Many such state laws have been subject to challenges since RvW and DvB, Doug.
If the SC's true intent was to void such laws, why wouldn't they just go ahead
to void them? Can you cite even one instance where a post-RvW/DvB state law
has been voided by the SC because of a broadening definition of "health
reasons"? I think you and Tushnet are vastly overstating the vagueness of the
term "health reasons". I know what it means. Everyone on talk.abortion, except
one, seems to know what it means. Physicians know what it means. State medical
licensing boards know what it means. Legislators know what it means. The
Supreme Court knows what it means. Apparently, the only people who -don't-
know what "health reasons" means are you and perhaps Prof. Tushnet.

Let me reiterate the clue:

    "Health reasons" != "virtually any reason"

>> The Roe v Wade
>> opinion states that you are wrong explicitly.
>
>No it doesn't.

Yes it does:

    For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its
    interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses,
    regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary,
    in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or
    health of the mother. (_Roe v. Wade_, summary, part 2 (c)).

This part was reaffirmed in the more-or-less _de novo_ review of _Roe_
recently given in _Casey_:

      We also reaffirm Roe's holding that -subsequent to viability, the
    State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may,
    if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it
    is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of
    the life or health of the mother.-  Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S., at 164-165.
    (_Casey_, part IV (e)).

Again, I ask you, Doug: if the SC had wished to void the Pennsylvania law,
why wouldn't they have just voided it? Why do you keep insinuating that the
Court "really" wants unrestricted-abortion-on-demand-throughout-pregnancy, in
the face of so many perfect opportunities to do so that the Court has passed
over since RvW/DvB? It just doesn't make any sense. Missouri still has their
post-viability restrictions basically intact, after appearing before the
Court. So does Pennsylvania. So do a lot of other states. How do you explain
this?

>> An interpetation
>> of health by a law professor writing an article for a law journal
>> is neither law nor fact.  Tushnet's opinion does not carry the
>> force of law, and the facts bear this out.
>
>Mark Tushnet didn't write an interpretation of the term ``health'',
>he quoted a Supreme Court decision.  So did several other authors,
>in the sources which I provided.

Then, pray tell, who *DOES* define "health", Doug? Do you think the _woman_
gets to decide what constitutes a "health reason"? That is *NOT* what RvW
says. See quote above. It says "appropriate medical judgment", which means
"a trained, professional physician bound to millenia-old canons of ethics,
and subject to state licensing requirements".

Here is the clue, for hopefully the last time:

    "Health reasons" != "virtually any reason"

Give it up, Doug. RvW is not unrestricted abortion-on-demand-throughout-
pregnancy. The only post-viability protection RvW offers is for abortions
done to preserve the life or health of the mother, and there's simply no
evidence that "health" in this context is an open door or a slippery slope
to your "virtually any reason" [sic].

                                - Kevin