From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:37:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.014858.14831@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <Bvq88E.9B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>>arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>
>>> I'm not up on my Roe v. Wade, but is it not illegal to abort a fetus in the
>>> third trimester?
>
>> Roe v. Wade ruled, essentially, that state laws prohibiting first and
>> second trimester abortions violates a woman's Fourth Amendment rights.
>> Third trimester abortions are not protected by Roe v. Wade, but are
>> legal in some states.

WHAT? THE *FOURTH* AMENDMENT, I.E. SEARCH AND SEIZURE!?!?!

The above statement is *not* correct. The attorneys for Jane Roe even rejected
an 8th Amendment claim -- cruel and unusual punishment -- because it was too
far-fetched, but a 4th Amendment claim would make that look _pro forma_.
Roe v Wade was filed on 9th and 14th Amendment grounds -- it was _decided_
on the 9th & 14th, plus the "penumbra" of the entire BOR identified in a long 
line of previous precedents. Please read the background literature.

>Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
>the term of pregnancy.  In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states 
>may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary 
>to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad 
>definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
>health...

Okay, Doug, you've finally tried my patience. Let's deal with this 
misconception once and for all. 

The only restrictions on third-trimester state abortion laws are when the
"life or health of the mother" are at stake. But who gets to decide that?
Physicians do. At most, you have demonstrated that *PHYSICIANS* have the 
power of life and death over third-trimester fetuses. Individual women
may or may not have the power, depending on one's reading of those decisions,
but physicians do. Is that such a bad thing? Bear in mind that physicians are
state-licensed, so to that degree the state DOES have control over their
decisions. Bear in mind also that physicians are bound by their own rigorous
codes of ethics -- the Hippocratic Oath, etc. -- which, if they violate, they
are suspended or stripped of their physician status, and therefore, by the
aforementioned state licensing, become ineligible to practice. Medical ethics
is therefore a KNOWN and CONTROLLED phenomenon, not just a term for collective
random acts.

Now, you might say, this may be all well and good, but RvW/DvB *PERMITS*, in
theory, third-trimester abortions for "bad" reasons. Does it just? Remember 
that the author of the RvW opinion -- Harry Blackmun -- was very knowledgeable 
about medical ethics. He was, after all, Counsel to the Mayo Clinic for quite
a number of years. He KNEW what he was saying when he wrote "the state has a
legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical
procedure, is performed under circumstances that ensure maximum safety for
the patient". He KNEW that he was putting tremendous power in the hands of
physicians, but at the same time he was cognizant of medical ethics, so that
he could be sure that the power was in good hands.

You're probably not quite so trusting of the medical profession as Harry
Blackmun is. I'm not so trusting either. But they've been around long enough
to deserve the benefit of the doubt, Doug. Can you document cases where doctors
in good standing are regularly performing third-trimester abortions for "bad"
reasons? If you can't, then I think you should perhaps admit that Harry 
Blackmun and crew knew what they were doing two decades ago, and all this 
speculation and theorization about RvW/DvB being "three trimester abortion-on-
demand" is just common, run-of-the-mill scare tactics. Give it up, Doug.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy