From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: Bush, Clinton, and the Abortion Issue
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:28:01 GMT

[Nice try on the newsgroups line, Doug.  Do you usually like sending 
responses away from the core constituency?)

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>A great deal of controversy has swirled around the platform of the 
>Republican party calling for a constitutional amendment banning all 
>abortions.  President Bush has said through a spokesman that he supports 
>the platform.  

>I believe that Bush does not personally support such a ban, but he does 
>not wish to alienate some members of the Republican party by criticizing 
>the platform.  

If Bush is more worried about alienating members of his party than he is
about allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother where
abortion is concerned, then he's a cynical sonofabitch who's better off out
of office.

>Clinton has had to change his abortion stance to place it in line with 
>the Democratic platform of unrestricted abortion-on-demand.  

Sorry.  The Democratic platform is NOT unrestricted abortion-on-demand, as
has been pointed out to you an almost uncountable number of times by now,
Mr. Holtsinger.  The platform supports the FOCA, which is not unrestricted
abortion-on-demand per se; and the reality of the current situation is 
*definitely* not unrestricted abortion on demand.

Lie number one.

>As governor 
>of Arkansas, he signed legislation requiring parental notification, 

Yes, he did.  That is accurate, and something I don't agree with.

>Clinton has stated that he would not veto Medicaid funding of abortions
>for poor women.  

A very pro-choice attitude.

>I think we can all agree that a ban on all abortions is a minority-
>-held position, even in the Republican party.  But the Democratic
>platform of unrestricted abortion-on-demand is also a minority-held
>position.  

Unrestricted abortion on demand is probably a minority-held position, yes.
Unfortunately for your propaganda machine, it is also NOT the Democratic
platform.  That's your second attempt at this lie in one post; very good.

>The situation we have today is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-
>demand.  

No, it is not.  Not legally, and not realistically.  Try listening to Larry
Margolis and others before lying Yet Again.  (That's number three, for those
keeping score at home.)

>The Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade does not permit the 
>states to prohibit abortions even when the fetus is viable.  

Bright green bullshit.  RvW most certainly *does* allow restrictions on
abortion; a few in the second trimester and quite a bit in the third.  Try
reading it someplace other than the OR handbook.  

>The very
>broad definition of "health" given by the Court includes emotional 
>and psychological health.  A pregnant woman carrying a viable fetus
>need only find a physician who's willing to perform the abortion for 
>her "mental health".  

And if she's in the third trimester, that's three doctors total.  Nationwide.

And just how many women do you think *would* suddenly decide she needs an
abortion for "mental health" that late in the game, hmm?  Do you have *that*
low an opinion of women?

>If Bush is re-elected, all he could do is to appoint a Supreme Court
>justice who may vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.  

"All".  What you so intriguingly fail to mention is that a fifth vote would
very probably overturn RvW entirely and leave the whole thing up in the air.  

>It's not even clear whether Bush will 
>get an opportunity to appoint a justice.  

Nonsense.  Blackmun has all but said outright that he's retiring very early 
into 1993; and it's all but certain he wouldn't stick around for four years 
even if he changed his mind.  

>And Congress will certainly 
>put up a good fight to prevent Bush from appointing a justice who
>may vote to overturn Roe. 

And, if the right wing's smear tactics remain at their current level, they'd
lose.  Or have you forgotten the Thomas-Hill hearings?

>The Court may not overturn Roe completely.  

"May".  Interesting that when your past appeals to "morality" haven't worked,
you're now campaigning for Bush by saying "well, maybe he wouldn't do THAT
much".  Aren't you upset that he *might* betray your basic principles?  And if
not, doesn't that make you just as hypocritical as he is?

>Some restrictions on state 
>abortion legislation could remain.  And even if Roe was overturned 
>completely, many states have indicated that they will not pass 
>legislation restricting or prohibiting abortion. Abortion would  
>remain legal even if Roe is overturned.   

Patchwork and piecemeal.  I don't believe the legality of abortion should
depend on where you live or how much money you have.  You evidently do.

>In summary, I believe the controversy surrounding the Republican 
>platform on abortion has been blown way out of proportion.  

Funny; looks like the possibility of controversy at the convention was blown
right off the floor.  The Bush team is good at stifling dissent at the moment,
I'll grant that.  Pity it will do them not a bit of good when facing people
who don't want him in office.

>People
>knew that Bush was opposed to abortion when he was elected in 1988.
>They knew that he might appoint justices to the Supreme Court who
>could vote to overturn Roe.  This time is no different.  

Except that this time is two justices and several important cases later.  
People have woken up and realized the danger they're in.  

I am amused, Doug.  Your backpedaling in an effort to keep Bush in the
White House is second only to Bush's himself.  

Tim Lynch 
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"It is time for them to go."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion