Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:23:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Keywords: Holtsinger recycles his lies
Summary: DOD lies about Roe AGAIN

In article <1992Sep29.013321.414@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

#Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout the
#term of pregnancy.  The Supreme Court ruled that the states may
#prohibit abortion during the third trimester except when the 
#abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's "health" or life, 
#but they gave "health" a very broad definition, including emotional 
#and psychological health.  Thus women can obtain abortions
#throughout the term of pregnancy for practically any reason.

Holtsinger is well aware that this is not true.  

He tried to convince people that it was this summer.  He
quoted parts of court decisions, and quoted some attorneys
out of context, but many people did their research and
proved him wrong.  He probably thinks that the new semester
has brought fresh, gullible readers for his claims.

The following is from Roe v. Wade.  When read in its 
entirety, it is obvious that Roe does not protect
"unrestricted abortion-on-demand."

"The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant
 woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.  Specific
 and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy
 may be involved.  Maternity, or additional offspring, may
 force upon the woman a distressful life and future. 
 Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical
 health may be taxed by child care.   There is also the 
 distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
 child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into
 a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise,
 to care for it.  In other cases, as in this one, the
 additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed
 motherhood may be involved.  All these are factors the 
 woman and her responsible physician necessarily will 
 consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in 
regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also 
acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right 
is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly assert important 
interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and 
in protecting potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these 
respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain 
regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.  The 
privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.  In 
fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some *amici* that 
one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a 
close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the 
Court's decisions.  The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited 
right of this kind in the past. [citations omitted]"


Susan


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss