From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When will Keegan begin harassing Cochran about his prochoice label?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:02:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov06.181846.101345@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In <1992Nov6.020030.4492@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov05.193621.113002@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>In <1992Nov5.155027.13200@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov05.041312.63842@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>>>In <1992Nov3.164133.5451@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>>I will note for the record here, that Keith Cochran has already admitted to
>>>>>>supporting one, albeit not very burdensome, legal restriction on abortion.
>>>>>>I support *NONE*. I therefore consider him closer to Pro-life than myself.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you then stating that you are in favor of forced abortions?
>>>>
>>>>Did I say that? Did I imply that?
>>>
>>>I felt you implied it by stating that you don't support the restriction that
>>>the woman must want the abortion, hence my question.

It's a "restriction" I don't think should be codified into law, since such a
codification potentially opens the door to the kinds of worst-case government
intrusiveness I explore below.

Actually, I don't think it should be considered a "restriction" at all. What's
"restrictive" about it? I prefer to treat such "asking" as merely an 
observation. It is observed that *MOST* women ask their doctors to perform 
abortions. But some women CAN'T "ask" their doctor (e.g. women in comas), and 
many, if RU-486 or similar drugs ever get approved, won't even NEED to ask a 
doctor. The law has a nasty tendency to treat everything as _absolute_and_
immutable_, Larry. I think it's a bad idea to codify changeable observations 
into "legal requirements". That's asking for trouble. Look at all the 
messiness over the original RvW decision -- the first/second trimester 
boundary was picked because, in the early seventies, that's about where the 
lines representing mortality from abortion and mortality from childbirth ran 
together. That point has SHIFTED, yet the legal distinction largely still 
remains. Similarly with the second/third trimester boundary -- that was based 
on "viability". That point has shifted, too, yet the legal distinction largely 
still remains. Moral of the story: be very very careful what you legislate, or 
you may be stuck with an _absolute_and_immutable_ version of it, no matter how 
variable it may be in reality.

>>>>>Is this what
>>>>>you _really_ want to say?  Or do you in fact support the same "restriction"
>>>>>that Keith does?
>>>>
>>>>I see no need for that specific legislation. Forced abortions are already
>>>>illegal (assault), and so are abortions accidentally performed by physicians
>>>>(malpractice). Given that, I challenge you or Cochran to demonstrate that
>>>>there is a social need for this legislation.
>>>
>>>I see nothing above regarding *new* restrictions.
>>>
>>>>Do _you_ support Cochran's legislative agenda, Larry?
>>>
>>>Legislative agenda?  As you pointed out, the only restriction he'd support
>>>is already covered by current laws, so there's no need for any new laws.
>>
>>Can you read Cochran's mind, Larry? How do you know that what you and I
>>may agree is "unnecessary" is not seen as "necessary" by Cochran, or vice
>>versa?
>
>As an ex-boyfriend, I have a certain intuition...  :-)
>
>>How do you know that he doesn't WANT to force women to sign "abortion
>>request forms" before they are permitted an abortion? How do you know that
>>he doesn't WANT to strictly forbid abortions on comatose women? Don't ASSUME
>>that Cochran wants no new laws, Larry. That MIGHT be a very mistaken
>>assumption.
>
>Umm, I'm assuming nothing.  

You're assuming he DOESN'T want to legislate, are you not?

>You're the one assuming a legislative agenda.

He said he supported a "legal restriction". The "legal restriction" he 
supports does *NOT* exist in law currently; at least not, to my knowledge, in 
any form close to his formulation. The only way for a "legal restriction" of
this kind to exist, which does not ALREADY exist, is via the passage of new 
legislation. Therefore, Cochran's "support" for this "legal restriction"
directly implies a legislative agenda. At least, that is my assumption, until
I hear differently (and the silence is deafening, I might add, from Cochran
himself). Do you see anything faulty in that line of reasoning?

>>>And yes, since I'm pro-choice, I'd be as opposed to someone being forced
>>>to get an abortion as I am to someone being forced to stay pregnant.  The
>>>woman is the one who should make that choice.
>>
>>That's nice, Larry, but non-responsive to the question asked.
>
>Well, you didn't respond to my question about forced abortion, so it seemed
>fair...

No-one has advocated forced abortions, Larry. Your question was asinine.
However, I'll answer it anyway: no, I'm most emphatically *NOT* in favor of
legally-mandated abortions. I have *NEVER* been in favor of legally-
mandated abortions. Happy now?

>To answer your question as directly as possible, I support Keith's stated
>position.  

Oh, goodie, then perhaps you can be my "beta test", since Cochran is
apparently in hiding right now...

Since you support, as a LEGAL RESTRICTION, the requirement that a woman must 
"voluntarily ask her doctor", before being allowed to abort, would you 
strictly prohibit abortions performed on women in comas, even if their wish 
to abort has been clearly and explicitly stated in writing prior to the coma? 
If not, why not?

Since you support, as a LEGAL RESTRICTION, the requirement that a woman must
"voluntarily ask her doctor", before being allowed to abort, do you place any 
restrictions on whom the state may designate as "her doctor"? Can it be anyone 
licensed by the state to practice medicine, that the state assigns as "her 
doctor"? Is it her ob/gyn at the time of conception? If the woman has no ob/
gyn at the time of conception, should it default to her general practitioner? 
Other possibilities?

Since you support, as a LEGAL RESTRICTION, the requirement that a woman must
"voluntarily ask her doctor", before being allowed to abort, do you also 
support the means to monitor and enforce this requirement, via the use of some 
sort of "official abortion request form", which would need to filled out and 
filed with some agency of the state? Under what circumstances, if any, would 
you consider a legal requirement that such a document bear a public notary 
seal to be "too burdensome" a requirement? Does the state have a right to 
demand that the true REASON for the abortion be stated on the "abortion 
request form"?

That'll do for starters...

								- Kevin