home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / talk / abortion / 53352 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-29  |  1.4 KB
  1. Xref: sparky talk.abortion:53352 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1340
  2. Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.usa.constitution
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
  4. From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
  5. Subject: Re: Basis for Roe Decision
  6. Message-ID: <1992Dec29.182641.22268@rotag.mi.org>
  7. Organization: Who, me???
  8. References: <1992Dec23.071640.4656@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <1992Dec23.073531.4848@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <1992Dec23.171241.7353@midway.uchicago.edu>
  9. Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:26:41 GMT
  10. Lines: 17
  11.  
  12. In article <1992Dec23.171241.7353@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
  13. >
  14. >Further arguments exist as to abortion rights as implicit in the Equal
  15. >Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, or (less plausibly) in
  16. >the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, though the Court has yet
  17. >to adopt either of these approaches.
  18.  
  19. Could you elaborate at all on the reasoning behind these arguments, Ted,
  20. particularly the EP argument? This is the first I've heard of Equal 
  21. Protection being applied to the abortion issue. Does the "protection"
  22. refer to disparate treatment between born and unborn children (e.g. giving
  23. z/e/f's a right of "occupancy" not enjoyed by born children), or does it
  24. revolve around the disparate treatment between men and women, or between
  25. pregnant and non-pregnant women?
  26.  
  27.                                 - Kevin
  28.  
  29.