From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Mark Cochran, check *Thornburgh*, try again
Summary: Mark Cochran v. Chief Justice Burger, dissenting
Keywords: risks, surgical procedure
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:32:28 GMT

My thanks to Peter Cash for relaying this follow-up to one of my posts
while my netserver is blind [still is--175 hours and counting, since
the last time it received any news].  It shows an astonishing willingness
on the part of Mark Cochran to repeat disinformation.  Whether he realizes
it is disinformation is another matter, but at least he seems quite 
confident of the truth of what he is saying.  

His statement, however, contradicts what Chief Justice Burger said in his
*Thornburgh* dissent.

_________________________Copy of Cochran Post__________________________

From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: abortion
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:39:14 GMT

In article <nyikos.724089886@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>And BTW, an earlier post on this thread said all pregnancy involves a 
>risk to life, and asked what the Weaver Nelson probability should be 
>before abortion is allowed.  To which I would reply, that all abortion
>involves a risk to life, and what anyone's probability should be
>before they will EVEN SUPPORT LAWS MANDATING ABORTIONISTS INFORM WOMEN
>OF THE RISKS INVOLVED.
>
What makes you think the risks are not explained?
All invasive medical procedures require informed consent.
Informed consent requires that all risks of the procedure be detailed.
Care to try again?

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
____________________________End of post______________________________

My second try:

Chief Justice Burger, dissenting in 476 US at 783:

	   The extent to which the Court has departed from the limitations
	expressed in *Roe* is readily apparent.  In *Roe*, the Court
	emphasized
		"that the State does have an important and legitimate
		interest in preserving and protecting the health of the
		pregnant woman..." *Id., at 162.

	Yet today the Court astonishingly goes so far as to say that the 
	State may not even require that a woman contemplating an abortion
	be provided with accurate medical information concerning the risks
	inherent in the medical procedure which she is about to undergo
	and the availability of state-funded alternatives if she elects
	not to run those risks.  Can anyone doubt that the State could 
	impose a similar requirement with respect to other medical 
	procedures?  Can anyone doubt that doctors routinely give similar
	information concerning risks in countless procedures having far
	less impact on life and health, both physical and emotional than 
	an abortion, and risk a malpractice lawsuit if they fail to do so?
	   Yet the Court concludes that the State cannot impose this 
	simple information-dispensing requirement in the abortion context
	where the decision is fraught with serious physical, psychological,
	and moral concerns of the highest order.

Update: this part of *Thornburgh* was overturned in *Casey*, but I do
not know of any state law except the Pa. law that was upheld, that now
requires abortionists to inform patients of the risks.  There is NO such
law in South Carolina, thanks in part to the head honcho [I forget his
exact title], male, of the SC ACLU, who stated in testimony to the SC
state legislature that such provisions are unconstitutional, and the
bill died as a result of delaying tactics by him and other pro-choicers and
pro-aborts.

Knowing how tenacious Mark and other pro-choicers can be, I imagine they
would tough it out by claiming that Mark made no claims as to *legal*
requirements, only ethical ones, the risk of a lawsuit being ever-present.

These people should, however, recall how aggressively Susan Garvin spoke
when I spoke of actual life-threatening malpractice by Ismail Elguindi,
saying I'd better be praying that my information be correct because
NUISANCE LAWSUITS BEGET LAWSUITS against the one bringing them to court.
How is a woman supposed to document the fact that the information was
withheld from her?  Chris Lyman figuratively snarled at me because I 
happened to be "wrong"--at least according to the court decision--about
a Native American woman being withheld information about an actual
ovarian cancer.  And another pro-choicer (or was he a pro-abort?)
said *drool* over the prospect of curbs being put on

	SLEAZY ANTI-CHOICE LAWYERS.

I wonder, by the way, whether Larry Margolis can provide the place where
the following passage from _Aborted Women, Silent no More_ was, in his
words, "thoroughly refuted".  The passage goes a bit further than Burger
in the above dissent in certain aspects of the "doctor-patient
relationship."

	  Third, abortion is the only surgery for which the surgeon
	is not obliged to inform the patient of the possible risks
	of the procedure, or even of the exact nature of the procedure.
	Indeed, abortion providers are the only medical personnel who
	have a "constitutional right" to withhold information, even
	when directly questioned by the patient.               ^^^^
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
 [Citations to *Akron* and *Thornburgh* follow.  Of course, this was before
this year's *Casey* decision.]

	This right is supposedly granted so that "conscientious physicians"
	might "protect" women from being frightened by the risks they
	face or upset by what the abortion procedure will do to their
	unborn children.  Unfortunately, this "right" to control and
	censure the information which is given to women also allows
	paternalistic control, manipulation, and deceit.  *Abortion* *is*
	*the* *only* *medical* *procedure* *for* *which* *legal* *and*
	*medical* *codes* *deny* *the* *patient* *the* *right* *to*
	*informed* *consent*. [p.234] [italics in the original
					for starred words]

I'd like to see Adrienne Regard's reaction to the above.  To read her 
posts, you'd think women had no need of such information because
they can find out all THEY CARE to know without such paternalistic
laws.  No hint of where, except the library.  No lists of books or 
authors for suggested reading.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women