From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Unofficial Summary for Tuesday, April 7, 1992
Summary: Law? Constitution?
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 04:56:15 GMT


In article <9=rj0qg.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
>
>for Tuesday, April 7, 1992
>
>by John Switzer
>
[some disclaimers deleted]

>This unofficial summary is copyright (c) 1992 by John  Switzer.
>All  Rights Reserved. Distribution of this unofficial summary to
>other electronic forums and bulletin boards is highly encouraged.
>Spelling and other corrections gratefully received.
>
>Please read the standard disclaimer which was included with the
>first summary for this month. In particular, please note that
>this summary is not approved or sanctioned by Rush Limbaugh or
>the EIB network, nor do I have any connection with them other as
>a daily listener.
>
>******************************************************************
>
>April 7, 1992
>
>MORNING UPDATE
>
>Why do the feminazis fear the democratic process? Evidently they

BTW what does the term feminazis [sic?] really mean?  In the context
that follows it looks like Rush is trying for a pejorative adjective
to make any woman who thinks that some abortions are justified to be
the equivalent of Hitler.  If that is the wrong intepretation, then
the term nazi should not be used.  Nazi is not a casual pejorative!

>do because they are hysterical about the possibility of the
>Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade. This ruling will
>eventually be overturned because it is a bad law - the

Is it "bad law" or is "Roe vs. Wade" an interpretation of what the
then court believed that our constitution said and meant?  I was
unaware that the Supreme Court could make law.  They only decide
if a given law is valid given "an" interpretation of the constitution.

>Constitution does not provide any "right to an abortion," and in
>fact the founding fathers made a point about all citizens having
>the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Rush

Could you cite the article or amendment which compels a woman to
carry a fetus to term.

>states his belief clearly - "The Constitution should not be bent
>or stretched to give the right to kill unborn babies."
>
>However, if the people want this right, then a law should be
>passed using the democratic process. Congress should write and
>pass a law, and the President should sign it. But why do the
>feminazis disdain the democratic process? Why don't they trust
>it? After all, they continually claim that the vast majority of
>Americans support abortion, so why don't they let the people
>decide? Or could it be that the American people do not, in fact,
>support abortion? Could this be the reason feminazis are so
>worried about using the democratic process?
>

So what is the democratic process?  It is very clear that the current
congress and the last few (back to 83 or 85, and then a number of ones
before 81) could pass a law saying that some abortions are legal.  That
is democratic isn't it?  The current president and the last would
veto such a law.  (Of course the current president, when he was
chosen to be the v.p. candidate in 80, had a conversion which rivaled
Saul's.)  And I think that serveral presidents prior to Reagan would
sign such a law.  So who represents the very vaunted "will of the people"?
And what is the "will of the people"?  How many people have the same
prejudice that you or I have?  And just because we may disagree on
one issue, do we disagree on them all?

All of the polls which I have seen, and of course my memory is selective,
suggests that the majority of people would support abortion in the
cases of rape, incest, or where carrying the fetus would jeporadize
the woman's health.  The ditto heads think that the government should
get off of people's backs.  I think that the majority of women think
that the government should get off their backs on this issue.  On
both sides of the question.

In John's summary to this point there seems to be a bluring of the 
difference of the law and of the constitution.  Does anyone one want
to make book on how an amendment allowing abortion for rape, incest,
and health would go?  The process of getting the amendment process
started and then getting the amendment passed is almost Byzantine;
as per the constitution.  This IMO is a major reason why our country
has been so stable and looks like it will continue.  We can get changes
to the constitution when needed (well one was not) but it is damn
difficlult to change the constitution to conform with current
fashions, except for prohibition and that one is gone.  And that should
give comfort and warning to Rush's ditto heads.

[rest of summary deleted]
>-- 
>John Switzer-Hoek          | "You hear it, you see it, 
>(note yuppy hyphenation)   | you want to turn away, but 
>74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | you CAN'T! It's Ren and Stimpy!"
>jrs@netcom.com             | Happy, Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy, Joy!

-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)