From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:06:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.060309.27416@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov21.035517.21641@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> 
> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> 
> >> The existence of a law doesn't mean that 
> >> the law can be enforced without being challenged. 
> 
> > Name one instance of a third trimester abortion performed
> > contrary to the law.
> 
> Before I do that, will you admit that Roe v. Wade
> is unrestricted abortion-on-demand?  If you won't
> admit it, I don't see any point in providing such
> an instance.  

Huh?  If I abandon my position without proof that it is wrong,
you'll then prove that my position is wrong?

Uh, no.  But you knew I'd say that.  This gives you the
classic Usenet out.  "I could prove you are wrong, but
you wouldn't believe me, so I won't."

It's very cute, Reverend.  I should add that I phrased my
request badly.  I would say that third trimester abortions
may  very well have been performed contrary to the law.  This
would not make Roe v Wade unrestricted abortion on demand,
nor would it damage my point.  It would make someone a law-
breaker, and whether the state subsequently chose to prosecute
is another matter.  Also, as Susan Garvin recently pointed out,
Casey v PP has changed the interpretation of third trimester
abortion restrictions somewhat.

If you have proof of your position, Reverend, post it and quit
playing footsie.

> > Larry Margolis has posted the relevant section numerous times.
> 
> The section which he quotes basically says that the ability
> of a woman to obtain an abortion is dependent on the
> availability of a physician who's willing to perform
> the abortion.  

No, it says that abortion can be restricted except in cases
where the life or health of the mother is concerned.  You and
some others read Doe v Bolton to give "health" a broad
definition, but practice does not give it so broad a definition.
I am sure you could find anecdotal evidence of instances where
it has been given a broad treatment.  My response to that is
that in the days prior to Roe v Wade a woman, in order to obtain
an abortion, had to be certified as insane in New York State.
Some women went to the trouble of obtaining that certification
in order to obtain an abortion.  They were sane and they knew
it.  Does this mean that prior to Roe v Wade New York State
had a broad definition of insanity, or does it mean that
some people were able to circumvent the law?

> >> 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.
> 
> > He interpreted the definition of health provided by Doe v
> > Bolton as being much broader than it is in practice.  Your
> > allegations remain theoretical.
> 
> Mark Tushnet didn't interpret the definition of the word "health",
> he quoted the definition from Doe v. Bolton.

And interpreted it for his own purposes after quoting it.  Get real.
This stuff is pure gamesmanship from you, Reverend.

Dean Kaflowitz