From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Clarifying "Restrictions"
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:26:46 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

Linda Birmingham <ADMN8647@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
-> In article <1993Jan4.224635.12058@crd.ge.com> James G Keegan Jr says:
-> >ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
-> >|>I should like to point out that almost nobody seriously proposes that
-> >|>there should be no restrictions whatever on the process of getting an
-> >|>abortion.
-> >
-> >this statement is not correct.
-> >
-> >i know of no pro-choice organization seeking to restrict
-> >abortions.
-> 
-> "Support for total repeal of all abortion laws also came from
-> some unexpected sources. Lyndon Johnson had appointed a
-> Presidential Advisory Council on the Status of Women, with former
-> Senator Maurine Neuberger of Oregon as its chairwoman.  Its
-> report, released in 1968, called for the repeal of all abortion
-> laws." L. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes
-> 
-> "NAC came out in support of abortion as the woman's right.  Women
-> might seek abortions after twenty weeks with the most compelling
-> reasons - a teenager afraid to tell, a meonpausal woman who had
-> not realized she was pregnant, a woman who has just discovered
-> that she is carrying a deformed child.  A time-limit on abortion
-> was thus seen as an arbitrary denial of these individual
-> circumstances". S. Rowbotham, The Past is Before Us
-> 
-> "The answer to later abortion is not further restrictions - the
-> answer is access early in the pregnancy.  Sex education and birth
-> control counselling not only reduce the need for abortion per se
-> but also reduce the number of later abortions.  Ready access to
-> an abortion facility eliminates delay.  And full insurance
-> coverage means that women must not spend time looking for money
-> to pay for the procedure.  Thus, people who oppose these measures
-> are, in fact, contributing to the incidence of later abortions"
-> CARAL (Canada), The Case Against Criminal Sanctions
-> 
-> "Every woman has the fundamental right to decide for herself,
-> free from government interference, whether or not to have an
-> abortion.  Today, more than ever, American families do not want
-> the government to trample on their right to privacy by mandating
-> how they must decide on the most intimate, personal matters.
-> That is why even though Americans may differ on what
-> circumstances for terminating a crisis pregnancy are consistent
-> with their own personal moral views, on the fundamental question
-> of who should make this personal decision, the majority of
-> Americans agree that each woman must have the right to make this
-> private choice for herself.  Anti-choice proposals to ban
-> abortions for sex-selection" or "birth control" are smokescreens
-> designed to shift the focus of the debate away from this
-> fundamental issue and trivialize the seriousness with which
-> millions of women make this highly personal decision.  Any
-> government restriction on the reasons for which women may obtain
-> legal abortions violates the core of this right and could force
-> all women to publically justify their reasons for seeking an
-> abortion."
-> NARAL, Who Decides? A Reproductive Rights Issues
-> Manual

now that you're proven ray's statement to be incorrect,
i wonder if ray will be honest enough to correct his
mis-statement or if, like nyikos, he'll just let the
matter pass, perhaps offering transparent excuses along
the way.



-> 
-> 
-> 
-> 
-> Linda
-> --
-> Liberty in a free and democractic society does not require the
-> state to approve such decisions but it does require the state
-> to respect them....Justice B. Wilson, 1988
Newsgroups: talk.abortion