From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: In which DOD explains why not to vote for Bush.
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:20:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Aug18.164057.23032@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger), in trying to convince that pro-choice persons can
vote for Bush, actually makes a good case why pro-choice voters should
be sure to vote against GHWB:

Deletia repeating lies about `abortion on demand' (which I addressed
in an earlier post) to get to the central points:

>Now let's take a realistic look at the effect of a Republican win in
>the fall.  The Executive branch has no unilateral power to pass or
>even to propose a constitutional amendment.  It takes three-fourths 
>of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. 
>The states are not likely to ratify an amendment banning abortion,
>even if Congress could manage to muster the two-thirds majority needed
>to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Unfortunately, he would also veto the FOCA once it is passed by
Congress.  DOD neglects to mention this, but does remind us of the
nightmare of having as leader of the country someone who prattles on
hypocritically about morality and the need for a Constitutional ban on
all abortions.  Symbolic leadership on national issues, especially
those that are divisive, is important.

>If Bush is re-elected, all he could do is to appoint a Supreme Court
>justice who may vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.  However three justices
>who were appointed by Reagan and Bush have voted to uphold Roe v. Wade
>in the last abortion decision.  It's not even clear whether Bush will 
>get an opportunity to appoint a justice.  And Congress will certainly 
>put up a good fight to prevent Bush from appointing a justice who
>may vote to overturn Roe. 

The burdensome notification requirement was struck down by a bare
majority, and the last of the Warren Court judges is in his 80s and
ill health.  He has already stated that he will be forced by ill
health to step down in the near future.  Your attempts to misrepresent
only serve to hightlight the danger that more Bush appointments to the
Supreme Court represents: an end to a woman's right to reproductive
freedom and bodily autonomy.

>The Court may not overturn Roe completely.  Some restrictions on state 
>abortion legislation could remain.  And even if Roe was overturned 
>completely, many states have indicated that they will not pass 
>legislation restricting or prohibiting abortion. Abortion would  
>remain legal even if Roe is overturned.   

It would become illegal in some states, thus placing an extreme burden
on women unlucky enough to live in those states, especially poor women.  

>In summary, I believe the controversy surrounding the Republican 
>platform on abortion has been blown way out of proportion.  People
>knew that Bush was opposed to abortion when he was elected in 1988.
>They knew that he might appoint justices to the Supreme Court who
>could vote to overturn Roe.  This time is no different.  The Republican 
>platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion is
>largely symbolic in nature.  President Bush has no power to get that
>amendment proposed or ratified.

Why would anyone who was pro-choice want to take a chance that DOD's
rosy scenario about Republicans and abortion rights is true?  BTW,
it's not.  The obvious choice on the issue of choice is Clinton.  DOD
tried a series of machinations to argue against this position, but
leaving out any mention of FOCA and the poor health of the last of the
Warren era liberal justices is pretty dishonest.  Just an oversight,
DOD?

SJM