From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Intellectually Challenging moments in Modern history
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:42:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.153255.3604@menudo.uh.edu> 
HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu writes:

>> I disagree, I think the Democratic platform of "abortion on demand"
>> is a very extreme position. Polls consistently show that only a minority 
>> of the population supports "abortion on demand".

>  I suppose it depends on how you define it.  Most polls I see show
> an approx 60% for "choice".

I've seen polls that show only about 30% of Americans support abortion
on demand -- which is the current state of affairs. Others support
limited "choice", but not abortion on demand.

> [..]
> From a practical standpoint, Doug, accepting Roe does indeed allow for the
> restriction of abortion--after a certain point in fetal development.  

From a practical standpoint, Roe does not allow the states to prohibit
abortion at all. Women can obtain abortions all the way up to the point
of birth for reasons of health, where the term ``health'' is defined very 
broadly (including mental health). See the quote below. 

  "The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the
   fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate
   or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate
   medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman.
   This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's
   decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement
   ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional,
   psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the
   well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed
   the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently
   limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way
   that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians
   are willing to perform them.

   In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability
   as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the
   womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6].
   This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have
   an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb,
   on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what
   will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb. The uncertainty
   of this prediction might lead physicians to refrain from performing
   abortions if, as Roe seemed to suggest, states could readily
   prohibit post-viability abortions. The Court thus stressed that
   viability was essentially a medical judgement, and invalidated a
   law making physicians criminally liable for performing abortions
   when the fetus ``is viable'' or when there is ``sufficient reason
   to believe that the fetus may be viable''[7]. The threat of
   criminal liability in the face of the uncertainty associated
   with viability determinations unacceptably burdened the abortion
   decision. 

   In the same case the Court held unconstitutionally vague a
   provision requiring that physicians use the abortion technique
   making fetal survival most likely, so long as no other technique
   was necessary to protect the woman's health or life. These decisions
   severely restrict what the state may do to protect the potential
   life of the fetus even after viability, when Roe v. Wade holds 
   that the state's interest in protecting potential life is compelling.

   [...] In sum, the Court has substantially restricted the kinds of
   regulations a state may adopt to protect potential life by requiring
   that abortions be allowed where necessary to protect the woman's
   life or health and then by giving ``health'' a broad definition."

   From: Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986

[4] 410 U.S. at 163-164
[5] 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
[6] Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth,
    428 U.S. 52, 63--65 (1976)
[7] Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
 

> [.. rest deleted ..]
> Jammer Jim Miller 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion