HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: new SC ruling
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:05 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GTZ5FUWF16006WN2@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,     
    The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
>        The major objection is that Herrera did not bring up the "oh, by the
>way, I'm innocent" claim until every other appeal had been used.

Yes he did.  It's just that when you have police on the jury and in the
courtroom when the victim was an officer you have an obvious procedural
question that might win for you first.  

>        The court is saying that a claim of innocence at this point can not be
>considered reason enough to stay an execution (mainly because it would happen
>every time).

No.  What the court is saying is that the evidence you need to get the stay
essentially has to prove they got it wrong when they convicted you.  Given the
tendency for exculpatory evidence to come up years later in some cases, I think
enough to present a new jury question should be the standard.

>        Now, claiming your dead brother is really the killer might be
>convenient, by why didn't he bring this up earlier, like when he was arrested
>and when his brother was still alive?

Well, mainly because his brother's confession was to a lawyer.  That meant the
brother could invoke privilege and deny the lawyer authority to come forward. 
When the brother died, the privilege was revoked.

>        Seems mighty fishy to me.

Me too.  Especially when Thomas proposed going back to the mandatory death
sentence regime, which has been recognized as unconstitutional since the late
60's.

 							Dan, ad nauseum

P.S. The primary reason Texas went after Randall Dale Adams instead of the guy
who everyone thinks now committed that murder was that the probable killer was
underage and therefore couldn't get a death sentence.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:42:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >even if the guy were already executed, new evidence should have its day.
>
>         New evidence, yes.  But not necessarily a claim of innocence.  Ted
> Bundy was claiming that at the end also.

And that's what the lawyers produced--new evidence that would have
been admissable at the original trial.  Whether any of us, as outside
observers, buys these stories is beside the point.  Evidence that
could have changed the outcome of the original trial should be ample
cause for a new trial.  The Court came down on the side of procedure
over justice.

Executive clemency should be a short cut in these cases, not the only
recourse.

Best,
Peter

> >Kerry
>
> Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:38:15 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh and STAN JACOBS
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> No, you miss the point.  Rush doesn't have guests, because the show
> is about what RUSH thinks.  It's not about anything else, and it
> never claims to be.
>
> He's just a guy that likes to talk and has opinions--often informed,
> often acerbic, sometimes just shooting-the-breeze type opinions.
> And doing that has made him very, very popular.
>

Nominated for President by some ultra-conservative faction of the
Republican Party, Rush declined to actually run.  (Something about
how he didn't want the hassle, and that he was having too much fun
now to quit.)


> Rush held those opinions long before the EIB Network ever hit the
> airwaves.  The genius part is that Rush articulates what a lot of
> people in America feel -- and he does it in a fast-paced, interesting,
> and funny format.

EXACTLY.  Even those that strongly disagree with his viewpoints (and
there are MANY) often find his commentary more
interesting/entertaining or at least thought-provoking than the
standard evening news.

On the topic of evening news, do the networks have a file of
miscellaneous information to put on shows with no *real news* ... ???
For example, yesterday's news' TOP STORY was about some guy that lost
a leg in a hit-and-run and they found it miles a way wrapped in
plastic bag.  Then there were stories about a 10-year-old Australian
guitar player and a virgin with two kids-- artificial insemination.
Couldn't help but wonder if the entire show was taken from the
National Enquirer...

Maybe it's just the Los Angeles stations...   Who knows.  (Sorry to
change the topic in a message with my name in it...<smile>...)


--Stan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:42:33 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I support your call for more circumstantial evidence from Rufus Firefly,
> concerning the radio program.

  i *think* it was on npr, either last nite or this a.m. as i recall,
some cabinet official mentioned it to a reporter in passing, and it
should be in the main papers today. i may be wrong, of course . . . :)
i'll investigate and report back, unless someone else has seen the
same thing and has more details. i *was* a bit fuzzy at the time.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:47:07 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
              27 Jan 1993 10:33:36 CST from <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:33:36 CST rufus t. firefly said:

>  it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban want
>is not toleration, but official approval of homosexuality. no thanks.

Well, it seems that the advocates (including me) want
no more favor for homosexuals than say for satanists.
So, is the military officially approve of satanism?
How about KKK, does the military officially approve of
them too?

>rtf

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:40:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe

-andy says:

>That's what I like about lawyers.  What she did is worth a trip to the
>big house.  One would think that eventuality is a sufficient argument
>for the "Is it a crime?" question.  On the other hand, is it a crime
>if you're not convicted?  How about if you're not caught?

Actually, "what she did" was worth only a civil penalty...which she paid.

It was not worth a trip to what -andy refers to, apparently sentimentally,
as the "big house".


-T.

Who's glad that such a corporate lackey-type is out of the running.
Her disqualification was not the INS matter, it was her lifelong fight
against such things as anti-trust laws and for other corporate
screw-the-public goodies.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:38:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Well fancy that

>Well, I've been called a lot of things in my time, but never a non
>native English speaker ! I can provide documentary evidence to show
>that my family has lived in England for 800 years.

>Dunstan

wull, gawddam! ya mean, youse guys are tawlking "inglish"??? dint sum
fourin dude say that youse guys an us guys were divided by the same
langwidge? or maybe it was a merican said dat? wull, it don't madder anyhow....
least now i unnerstand whud he meant.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:01:18 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>>If the US is ever held to account for its numerous war crimes, and the UN
>
>>        Which would be?
>
>>Brett'
>Tell you what...would steering you towards the topics
>
>Panama          Grenada         Vietnam
>
>keep you busy with the answer for a while?
>
        Mmmm, no.  I'm not aware of any war crimes committed in Grenada or
Panama, and Vietnam is outside my area of expertise.

>Don't want to inundate you with them ALL at once...
>-T.

        Please do.  You should be able to give us a top ten list, at the very
least.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:44:48 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette

>The article said that the Environmental Protection Agency estimates
>that second hand smoke kills about 3,000 non-smokers annually.

So?  (Suppose that 90% choose to live with a smoker.  Does that
matter?)

-andy notes that 3,000 is still at least an order of magnitude
      less than MD's kill through "misadventure"

--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:51:27 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
              26 Jan 1993 13:27:50 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:27:50 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>        The major objection is that Herrera did not bring up the "oh, by the
>way, I'm innocent" claim until every other appeal had been used.

But the Supremes did not rule in case of Herrera only, rather
ruled in all cases.

>        The court is saying that a claim of innocence at this point can not be
>considered reason enough to stay an execution (mainly because it would happen
>every time).

Amazingly enough it has NOT happened every time.

>
>        Now, claiming your dead brother is really the killer might be
>convenient, by why didn't he bring this up earlier, like when he was arrested
>and when his brother was still alive?

>
>        Seems mighty fishy to me.
>
Maybe this case IS fishy but the Supreme Court ruled for all
cases.

>Brett'

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:20:53 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics

-T:

Are you *seriously* suggesting that MADONNA is not influential?

Have you been to a junior high school lately?

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:47:56 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

On a much lighter note...

> Or am I  watching too much LA Law? :)
>

"too much LA Law" is generally a contradiction in terms, with one
known exception-- that being, watching so much LA LAW, that you miss
CIVIL WARS, LAW AND ORDER, and all of the other courtoom drama on
television nowadays...

    As you might notice, I'm chomping at the bit to go to law
school.  This undergraduate crap is the biggest waste of time/money
that I have seen so far...

--Stan
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: UC390136@mizzou1.missouri.edu (JON HALL)
Subject: states rights and federal funding
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:35:33 GMT
X-Posted-From: mizzou1.missouri.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

i was just sitting, here, reading _the business of may next:
james madison and the founding_, and i wondered, "hmm, what
would james madison have thought of the federal government's
withholding of highway funding from a state, until that state
complied with the federal government's own particular view
of whatever (e.g., seatbelt laws, etc.)."
 
coercion of that sort isn't exactly what madison had envisioned,
when he came up with that federal republic idea ("i think myself
that it will be expedient in the first place to lay the foundation
of the new system in such a ratification by the people themselves
of the several states as will render it clearly paramount to their
legislative authorities." (miller 38) [madison's words, not mine] ),
imho.
 
so, what do y'all think? is it okey-dokey to chuck states rights
out the window, when a plurality of congress critters think it is?
since the feds are doing it, i suppose it's been upheld in court.
it just don't seem fair, to me. not nice at all. kinda like the
big kid down the street telling you how to play in your own backyard.
hmph.
 
just how far can the federal government go, in the cases? were such
actions challenged in court? is it all stare decisis, now?
 
oh, well, i think i just figured it out (somewhat). if anyone wants
to discuss it, here, well, permission is granted -- humbly.
 
just be eloquent -- and don't end up sounding like "the maclaughlin
group" or "the capital gang" or the like (as you're given to...).
be idealistic; leave out issues of the day. pretend you're wearing
a powdered wig. it'll be good for you -- i know these things.
 
-Jon Hall
uc390136@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:08:36 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >did something illegal (she said it wasn't a crime -- I don't know the
> >correct terminology).  What do y'all think?
>
> That's what I like about lawyers.  What she did is worth a trip to the
> big house.
That's not true.  The worst that she could have gotten is a fine.  That is,
in fact, what she did get.

> -andy
> --
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:22:05 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Ronald Reagan lives on
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

It's interesting that people talk of such great change in government when one
of the most important branches still lies in the hands of the right wing
(definition anyone?). Between Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the composition of
both the Supreme Court and the Federal Judgeships are extremely conservative.
Any new Clinton policies, program etc. are someday going to see the inside of a
courtroom and then we'll really see where the power is. Clinton can only undue
so much (by appointing new liberal judges) in four years. Will it be enough?

-Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:36:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      testing 123, hey this thing on yet??

heyhey, the node at temple finally came up and so did a couple hundred posts.

the friday beer countdown was delayed due to inclement relays, but has just
now started counting.....

it's 3:32 and if i have my way, 5 o'clock will happen about 30 minutes early.

i heard a vicious rumor that a large, bearded librarian down baltimore way
tried to start an alternate countdown....

YO! don't be fooled! there's only one true countdown, and that countdown is
conducted by moi, list mother, virtual white house chef, newly appointed
beer and felafel (however you spell that) peddlar for the rotisserie
philosophers' baseball league and ruler of the friday beer countdown.

so there.

HI --kerry!!(alias other kerry, missy justice, p2b...did i miss anyone?)!!
so good to have my favorite christian right winger back. things on the other
side were dull and boring w/out you.

raising a virtual beer to celebrate your comeback!

well, gotta go wind up some library stuff. later guys.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:15:35 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Renewal
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> It's easy to get caught up in a passionate speech, but we must not stop
> thinking about the past, as well as tomorrow. With each new administration
> we typically set ourselves up for a big letdown. Already there are signs:
>
> * The Zoe Baird nomination, of which enough has already been said.
I agree.
>
> * The Ron Brown nomination. In addition to a professional politician getting
>   a plum appointment, Brown's nomination is a problem in another way. Ten
>   years ago, Brown was hired as a lobbyist for Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier,
>   the Haitian Hitler, at the rate of $12,500 a month. Is this the best
>   Clinton can do? What's next? Kurt Waldheim for UN ambassador?  And, this
>   nomination occurred on the heels of his Haitian refugee reversal.
The fact that Mr. Brown was a paid lobbyist is not a sign of anything wrong.
As far as his representation of Duvalier is concerned, many people testified
in the Senate hearings that it was Brown's representation that helped the
people of Haiti. As for the best that Clinton can do, the pundits are
perfectly content that Brown will do a great job as commerce secretary.
He's very bright.  He has experience in the area.  Sure, it's a political
appointment.  But it's a good one.
> [ other cynical stuff deleted ]
>
> Am I cynical, or are there few signs of the renewal that Clinton promised.
> Indeed, don't stop thinking about tomorrow. And as you do so, just keep in
> mind that tomorrow never comes.
>

Yes, you are cynical.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:53:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      secular humanism?

NINAR Kerry,

Where did the Court rule that secular humanism is a religion ?

That sounds more like a dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987?)

Did you have another case in mind ?

                                   P.S.Ruckman,Jr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:47:22 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> On what grounds is the War Powers Act unconstitutional? Without a ruling
> saying such from the SC, what do you base your assertion upon? VMS

What he said! (I don't really mean to piggyback on Val's post, but
I've already deleted the original Brett' post.)

Besides, I thought that, for all intents and purposes, a president's
political life is over after he runs for his second term (either way).


From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:05:59 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              your friendly Dictator" at Jan 23, 93 11:58 pm

>
> >> Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
> >> in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
> >> And climbing.
>
> >    Pre-natal?  Pre-BIRTH human beings?  Please give me your definition of
> >a human being.
>
>         Oh, no! Not again.... Red alert! Red alert! Prepare for incoming
> onslaught of abortion messages. Mr. Sulu, raise shields. Chekov, lock in
> the "delete" phasers...
>
>  - Ramon
>
Ditto. The loathsome space aliens the Abortonians are about to bombard us with
ridiculous rhetoric from both sides of the force. Not ready now - not ready
ever!

- Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:42:48 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
              25 Jan 1993 00:47:44 -0500 from <MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU>

Harlequin romances aside:

The question here is not one (necessarily) of quality, bring that we
are dealing here in matters of opinion.  The question is one of
*representativeness*.

If, indeed, those who follow Rush are great in number, AND we assume
that they are in agreement with him on matters of politics, we must
then take into account the possibility that his brand of conservatism
is more influential than certain people would like to believe.

You seek to assume that, because (in your mind) his ideas are not of
high quality, his influence is small.  That is neither an accurate nor
a wise assumption.

Political power is of such a character that quality of candidate, importance
of issues, and wisdom have very little to do with outcome.

I remind you that I have record albums (yes, still) that humorously refer
to the satirical prospect of Ronald Reagan as President (at the time he
was considered to be little more than a junior-league George Murphy.  If
you don't know who George Murphy was, that should give you some idea of
how vastly things can change in just two short decades.  Because everybody
then understood Murphy to be a far more likely politician than Ronald
Reagan.  Now nobody remembers Murphy, but Reagan will be known to generations
yet unborn, simply because he was President.)

Intellectuals dismiss the hopes and dreams of those they consider less
pedigreed...at their peril.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:45:59 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Quotable quotes
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>"Your abortion can be a rebellious and empowering act.  It is an act
> through which you can assert yourself; one which can enable you to
> feel more connected to women around the world.  Indeed, it is a
> surgical operation with a mission."
>                 - Rebecca Walker, in Harper's Magazine Nov '92
>                   contributing editor
>                   Ms. Magazine

        I'm pro-choice but I certainly don't agree with people who equate
abortion with bra-burning.

Brett'