From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade is "abortion on demand" (was Re: ACLU's "Campaign
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:05:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.094133.15297@newstand.syr.edu> 
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> The quote that you provided was not a reasoned argument reagrding the
>>> applicability of the Doe discussion of "health" to the Roe.  It *assumed*
>>> that the discussion was applicable, and then went on to provide an
>>> argument as to what the implications of the *assumption* were.

>> If this "assumption" by the author is incorrect, then surely you can
>> provide a SOURCE which supports your claim? (I might point out the 
>> author which I quoted is a professor of law at Georgetown University.
>> What are your qualifications?)  

> I did provide my sources of information in my first post.  Go back and check
> them.  

You provided no quotes or sources which supported your argument.  You did 
provide some rambling personal opinions and vague conjecture based upon the 
sources that you claimed to have read.  

> I have questioned the assumption--but you will note that, unlike you,
> I have not made any *definitive* claims regarding the assumption.

But you haven't even shown that it's an assumption.  You need to at least
provide some evidence that the definition of "health" given in Doe does
not apply to Roe.  You've only offered a personal opinion.

> I have only claimed that, given the absolute lack of evidence supporting
> the assumption in terms of the actual practice of abortion laws, the onus
> is upon *you* to show your assumption to be reasonable.

I believe that I've shown that Doe v. Bolton is applicable to Roe.  I don't
know why you keep ignoring the quote which I provided.  

> And as I have pointed out before, scholarly guise can (and often has in the
> past) been used on *extremely* biased material.  A law professor (who likely
> is pre-disposed to a pro-life position) is hardly the be-all and end-all
> of SC precedent interpretation.

Have you actually read the entire article?  It's not biased at all.  There's 
absolutely no indication that the author is pro-life.  In fact, one of the
pro-abortionists on talk.abortion told me they read it and didn't find it
biased.

>>> Furthermore, since no court and no law (to the best of my knowledge) has
>>> ever reflected the interpretation that you support--

>> Wrong.  See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 401 (1979).  

> This is more like it.  I'll be glad to look up this case to see what it has
> to say, but you'll have to give me a little while since I don't dedicate
> my life to this matter.

Allow me to do your work for you:

   --------------------

   Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 400,401 (1979)

   We also conclude that the standard-of-care provision of 5(a)  [of
   the  Pennsylvania  abortion  statute] is impermissibly vague. The
   standard-of-care provision, when it applies, requires the  physi-
   cian to

    ``exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence
   to  preserve  the  life and health of the fetus which such person
   would be required to exercise in order to preserve the  life  and
   health  of  any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the
   abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the
   best  opportunity  for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a
   different technique would not be necessary in order  to  preserve
   the life or health of the mother.''

   [...]

   The statute does not clearly specify, as  appelants  imply,  that
   the  woman's  life and health must always prevail over the fetus'
   life and health when they conflict. The woman's life  and  health
   are  not  mentioned  in the first part of the stated standard-of-
   care, which sets forth the general duty to the viable fetus; they
   are mentioned only in the second part which deals with the choice
   of abortion procedures. Morever, the second part of the  standard
   directs  the  physician  to  employ  the  abortion technique best
   suited to fetal survival ``so long as a different technique would
   not be *necessary* in order to preserve the life or health of the
   mother'' (emphasis supplied). In this context, the word  ``neces-
   sary'' suggests that a particular technique must be indispensable
   to the woman's life or health--not  merely  desirable--before  it
   may be adopted. And the ``life or health of the mother,'' as used
   in 5(a) [of the Pennsylvania abortion statute], has not been con-
   strued  by  the  Courts  of the Commonwealth to mean, nor does it
   necessarily imply, that all factors relevant to  the  welfare  of
   the  woman  may  be taken into account by the physician in making
   his decision. Cf. United States v. Vuitch, 402  U.S.,  at  71-72;
   Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S., at 191."

   --------------------

In the last sentence of the opinion, the Justices cite Doe v. Bolton.
And note how the language ("all factors relevant to the welfare of
the woman") nearly matches the language given in Doe regarding the
definition of "health". 

Still think Doe is unimportant? 

Here's another case that you can look up: 

    Doe v. Rampton, 366 F. Supp. 189 (1973)

In Doe v. Rampton, a federal district court ruled that a Utah prohibition
on post-viability abortions to preserve the mother's "mental health"
was unconstitutional.  

>>> And no one said that Roe and Doe weren't consistent.  

>> That's exactly what you're saying.  You are claiming that two Supreme
>> Court decisions that were issued on the same day are inconsistent in
>> their use of the term "health".  Please provide a SOURCE for that claim.

> You either need to learn how to read, or you need to learn to be honest
> in debate.

I am being honest.  How else can your claim be interpreted? 

> I have made *no* claim of inconsistency.  I have suggested that it is
> possible (and appeared to me as though) the Doe opinion was saying,
>
> "The Georgia statute *may* mean by 'health'..."
>
> This would not preclude the Court from using health differently, in a
> different context.

Right, you are suggesting that the definition of "health" given in Doe
is different from that of Roe.  When you claim that the Court might
use "health" differently in a different context, you are assuming that
the Court would be using some implicit definition of "health" in Roe
which is different from Doe.  Hence you claim that Roe and Doe are  
inconsistent in their use of the term "health".  

> You should feel free to argue that I am wrong, and more importantly, to
> provide an argumnet as to how I am wrong.  

Your argument is wrong because otherwise the Supreme Court would be
using two different definitions of "health" from two cases that were
handed down on the same day.  And I've given you a source which
directly conflicts with this claim, and you've ignored it.  

If you're unsatisfied because my source doesn't explain why Roe
should be read in light of Doe, then I can't help you.  Perhaps
you should stop and think that such an explanation is not needed
because the answer is so obvious: Roe and Doe must be consistent
with each other.  

> But let's not play games where
> you purposefully misrepresent what I say to support your own theses.

Perhaps you're just not stating your case very well.  What definition
of "health" do you think should apply in Roe?  

>> Look, provide a *SOURCE* for your claims.  This is getting very tiresome. 
>> Your repeated assertions are not very convincing.  

> I did.  You just don't want to acknowledge any sources that don't loyally
> tow the party line.

No, you didn't provide any sources or quotes which supported your argument. 
Look, even a *small* quote will suffice. 

> And unlike you, I *do* use sources written by individuals with an
> opposite/different political viewpoint--because, while (in a case such as
> this) I do have my own political opinions, I try very hard to avoid letting
> those opinions color my understanding of what the *law* (whether it be by
> statute or by precedent) actually is.

Well, that's nice, but it doesn't support your argument. 

> This is primarily a discussion of law.  I have serious doubts as to whether
> you are capable separating your political opinions from your evaluation
> of law.

But it's not my "evaluation of law".  The author which I quoted (and the
cases which I've cited above) are not my evaluations of the law. You,
on the other hand, have freely offered your own personal opinion of
the law without providing any sources to back up your claims. 


>J. S. Greenfield 


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.abortion