From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 16:22:02 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


sf>In article <1992Oct10.013251.9252@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
dk>From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):

sf>It is true that pro-"choicers" don't want the people to actually
sf>voice their Choice on the matter.  Proposition 110 here in AZ, which
sf>we will be voting on Nov. 3rd, has already faced a court challenge to
sf>keep it off the ballot.  They were alleging that this proposed
sf>constitutional ammendment was "unconstitutional".  That's just plain
sf>ABSURD.   Anyway, they failed to keep it off the ballot :-) :-)
 
If the legislation being voted on in AZ goes against the decision in
RvW, then yes as of right now it would be "unconstitutional".  Since
the Supreme Court of the U.S. has determined RvW they have found the
right to legal abortion in the Constitution.  You and I may disagree
on this finding, but that doesn't change it.  It is very possible this
could change sometime in the future, but until it does, to make 
abortion illegal, unless in the way allowed by the decision of RvW,
(and Webster and Casey, etc..) would be unconstitutional.
 
sf>Don't tell me it has escaped your attention that court fiat is the
sf>prefered method of legislation by the supporters of abortion.
sf>"Damn the choice if it ain't for abortion!"
 
I agree. I think the pro-choice movement has relied on the courts
for to long and it has made them complacent.  The stacking of courts
over the last 12 years has proven the foolishness of such a 
strategy.  It is time we start fighting for abortion rights by
legislation.  I have no clue what your last sentence in the above
paragraph has to do with the rest of the paragraph. 
 
dk> He writes about his brilliant idea to abort callers.
dk> He says on occasion he would abort a caller, by playing
dk> the sound of a vacuum cleaner and then a scream and
dk> then hang up on the caller.  He claims he received 
dk> tons of call and letters complaining about this and how 
dk> all these listeners were disgusted by this.  I find it
dk> difficult to believe there were really that many people 
dk> upset by such a lame stunt.  
 
sf>Before I even knew his name, maybe it was a year or two ago, I happened
sf>to have this real obnoxious call-in show on the radio as I was driving to
sf>work.   As I parked my car, I heard him pull this stunt, and I just sat
sf>there stunned, with my mouth hanging open.   (Good thing I was alone.)
sf>Anyway, then I started to smile, and was glad that SOMEBODY in the media
sf>was finally telling it like it is.

sf>So yes, Dan, he really did it.
 
I left my paragraph in above.  It was not that Rush was doing caller 
abortions that I doubted.  I doubt that there was anywhere near the 
level of disgust with it that Rush claims.  I find it incredible that
anyone would have the type of disgust that Rush claims over such a 
lame stunt.

dk> He even claims a station 
dk> in Seattle cancelled his show over this.  Does anyone 
dk> know if this is true, and if so what station it was?  I'd
dk> love to talk to someone at that station to verify Rush's
dk> story and if it is true, find out their reason behind 
dk> cancelling. 

sf>Rush is on all over the country.
 
Maybe its me.  Maybe I'm having the reading comprehension 
problem.  However, I don't see how your answer has anything 
to do with the question I asked above.  What's the connection?
 
sf> Suzanne Forgach

Dan King
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41879 talk.politics.guns:21979 alt.conspiracy:11145 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5231 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6637 misc.test:11690