From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh 'O wau no me ka ha'a ha'a
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:40:42 GMT

From article <1992Oct11.162202.19480@nas.nasa.gov>, by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> 
> sf>In article <1992Oct10.013251.9252@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> dk>From article by dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King):
> 
> sf>It is true that pro-"choicers" don't want the people to actually
> sf>voice their Choice on the matter.  Proposition 110 here in AZ, which
> sf>we will be voting on Nov. 3rd, has already faced a court challenge to
> sf>keep it off the ballot.  They were alleging that this proposed
> sf>constitutional ammendment was "unconstitutional".  That's just plain
> sf>ABSURD.   Anyway, they failed to keep it off the ballot :-) :-)
>  
> If the legislation being voted on in AZ goes against the decision in
> RvW, then yes as of right now it would be "unconstitutional".  
>...

Dan, it was a _state_ court, and the plaintiffs were complaining that it 
would be unconsititutional against the _state_ constitution.   It never
made it to federal court, since it hasn't made it into law yet.



> sf>Don't tell me it has escaped your attention that court fiat is the
> sf>prefered method of legislation by the supporters of abortion.
> sf>"Damn the choice if it ain't for abortion!"
>  
> I agree. I think the pro-choice movement has relied on the courts
> for to long and it has made them complacent.  The stacking of courts
> over the last 12 years has proven the foolishness of such a 
> strategy.  It is time we start fighting for abortion rights by
> legislation.  I have no clue what your last sentence in the above
> paragraph has to do with the rest of the paragraph. 

> sf>"Damn the choice if it ain't for abortion!"

It expresses the true attitude of pro-"choicers", of course.



> dk> He writes about his brilliant idea to abort callers.
> dk> He says on occasion he would abort a caller, by playing
> dk> the sound of a vacuum cleaner and then a scream and
> dk> then hang up on the caller.  He claims he received 
> dk> tons of call and letters complaining about this and how 
> dk> all these listeners were disgusted by this.  I find it
> dk> difficult to believe there were really that many people 
> dk> upset by such a lame stunt.  
>  
> sf>Before I even knew his name, maybe it was a year or two ago, I happened
> sf>to have this real obnoxious call-in show on the radio as I was driving to
> sf>work.   As I parked my car, I heard him pull this stunt, and I just sat
> sf>there stunned, with my mouth hanging open.   (Good thing I was alone.)
> sf>Anyway, then I started to smile, and was glad that SOMEBODY in the media
> sf>was finally telling it like it is.
> 
> sf>So yes, Dan, he really did it.
>  
> I left my paragraph in above.  It was not that Rush was doing caller 
> abortions that I doubted.  I doubt that there was anywhere near the 
> level of disgust with it that Rush claims.  I find it incredible that
> anyone would have the type of disgust that Rush claims over such a 
> lame stunt.
> 
> dk> He even claims a station 
> dk> in Seattle cancelled his show over this.  Does anyone 
> dk> know if this is true, and if so what station it was?  I'd
> dk> love to talk to someone at that station to verify Rush's
> dk> story and if it is true, find out their reason behind 
> dk> cancelling. 
> 
> sf>Rush is on all over the country.
>  
> Maybe its me.  Maybe I'm having the reading comprehension 
> problem.  However, I don't see how your answer has anything 
> to do with the question I asked above.  What's the connection?

"and if so, what station it was?"

Only you know your local stations, Dan.  Odds are, at least one near you
carrie(s/d) it.


> Dan King

Suzane Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41741 alt.abortion.inequity:4329 alt.birthright:532