From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:23:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.201052.26599@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug27.213923.7964@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
>>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>>> Under Roe, ALL ABORTIONS AFTER 24 WEEKS OF GESTATION MAY BE PROHIBITED BY
>>> EACH STATE, WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF THOSE PERFORMED TO SAVE THE LIFE
>>> OF THE MOTHER.

This is not correct.  Roe v. Wade does not permit the states 
to prohibit abortions which are necessary to preserve the woman's 
health, where the term ``health'' is given a broad interpretation.
 
>>> Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician to
>>> attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation or 
>>> older.

>> No, this is not correct either.  Legislation to require a physician to 
>> employ the abortion technique which would provide the best opportunity
>> for the fetus to be aborted alive was struck down by the Supreme
>> Court in Colautti v. Franklin (1979).  

> For being vague, Holtsinger.  

We agree.  How does that change the fact that Ms. Mill's statements 
are incorrect?  


> The decision specifically says that the Pennsylvania law
> was overturned because it was vague.  It does not say that
> no similar legislation could be constitutional.  

Did I say that anywhere in this thread?  No.

Why do you keep raising these extraneous points?  

Ms. Mills claimed that ``EVERY state may enact legislation requiring
a physician to attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 week's
gestation or older''.  This type of law was struck down in Colautti v.
Franklin.  The actual law required the physician to: 

    ``exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence
      to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person
      would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and
      health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the
      abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide
      the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long
      as a different technique would not be necessary in order to
      preserve the life or health of the mother.''

>> However I had assumed that her second statement was in reference to Roe,
>> since her first statement begins with "Under Roe,...", and her second 
>> statement begins with "Therefore,..." (i.e. "Therefore [under Roe],...")

> Why is this pertinent?

I was responding to the semantic quibbling raised by Mr. Margolis.

>> Feel free to argue semantics, but it won't change the fact that the 
>> state cannot enforce legislation which would require a physician to 
>> preserve the life of a viable fetus during an abortion. 

> If you want to convince anyone that this is true, you'll
> have to cite something other than Colautti as support.

See above for the cite.

>> That's not the reason why the law was struck down.  It was struck
>> down because the law was vague.  

> That's right, Holtsinger.  The decision says nothing
> about the consitutionality of other, clearer stautes.

Please stick to the topic Ms. Garvin.  I was merely correcting
Ms. Mills' erroneous statements. 


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33846 alt.flame:12388