home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!concert!rock!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsholtsi
- From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is not unrestricted abortion-on-demand
- Message-ID: <1992Nov23.062547.28241@ncsu.edu>
- Date: 23 Nov 92 06:25:47 GMT
- Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
- Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
- Distribution: na
- Organization: North Carolina State University
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <1992Nov21.061148.123045@watson.ibm.com>
- margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
-
- >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
-
- >> The states can't enforce a law which is unconstitutional under
- >> Roe v. Wade, because it would be challenged if the state attempted
- >> to prosecute a doctor for performing a post-viability abortion:
-
- > Note that the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1989 has a number of
- > third-trimester restrictions. Some sections of the act were found to be
- > unconstitutional (in PP V. Casey), but of course the third trimester
- > restrictions weren't even challenged.
-
- The 1989 Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act also prohibited
- sex selection abortions throughout pregnancy, and those sections
- of the law weren't challenged in PP v. Casey either. I think
- it's rather obvious that those provisions are unconstitutional
- under Roe, and yet they went unchallenged, in addition to the
- unchallenged third trimester restrictions.
-
- >> Sure you have, you just sent some threatening e-mail to my
- >> system administrators today, and they sent me a copy of it.
-
- > You're lying again, Dougie - there was nothing threatening.
-
- In your opinion.
-
- >Larry Margolis
-
-
- Doug Holtsinger
-