From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Chris Lyman calls the Alan Guttmacher Institute a pack of liars
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:17:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.153105.22688@pwcs.stpaul.gov> 
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
> the term of pregnancy.
>
> [-- rest of post including citations from Tushnet et al. deleted--]

Why hasn't anyone addressed the documentation which I have
provided showing that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion-
on-demand?  I've provided sources from the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, an ACLU attorney who argued in PP v. Casey,
a respected Georgetown University law professor, and
an article written in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties
Law Review.  Not one person has refuted any of these sources.

> Every time you have posted your lies about Roe vs Wade, someone has posted 
> the text that refute your lies.  Here we go again (caps emphasis mine):

Are you telling me that Kathyrn Kolbert, attorney for the ACLU
in PP v. Casey, is a liar?  Is the Alan Guttmacher Institute a
pack of liars?  Remember, these people support abortion rights,
and they say that women can obtain abortions during the third
trimester for very broadly defined ``health'' reasons.  

>	On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
>	argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
>	terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
>	whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
>	Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all
>	in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to 
>	support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, is 
>	unpersuasive.  The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy
>	also  acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by
>	that right is appropriate.  As noted above, a state may properly
>	assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining
>	medical standards, and in protecting potential life.  AT SOME POINT
>	IN PREGNANCY, THESE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BECOME SUFFICIENTLY
>	COMPELLING TO SUSTAIN REGULATION OF THE FACTORS THAT GOVERN THE
>	ABORTION DECISION.  THE PRIVACY RIGHT INVOLVED, THEREFORE, CANNOT
>	BE SAID TO BE ABSOLUTE.  In fact, it is not clear to us that the
>	claim asserted by some *amici* that one has an unlimited right to
>	do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the
>	right of privacy previously articulated in the  Court's decisions.
>	The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind
>	in the past. [citations omitted]"

This quote is completely consistent with the documentation I
provided, which shows that a woman's ability to obtain an
abortion during the third trimester depends on the availability
of a physician who's willing to perform the abortion. 

> Again, I thank you for reinforcing the perception that the anti-abortion
> stance is based on lies.  

Are Kathyrn Kolbert and the Alan Guttmacher Institute "anti-abortion"? 
That's news to me. 

> Chris Lyman 


Doug Holtsinger
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion