From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: "only 3 doctors...perform third trimester abortions" is unsupported
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:12:09 CDT


In article <1992Sep4.173611.6427@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.164504.39938@watson.ibm.com>  margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> >dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> >> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
> 
> >>> even if I did my own investigation and came up with the same answer
> >>> reported on 60 Minutes and in the Minneapolis StarTribune,
> 
> >> The Minneapolis StarTribune quoted the National Abortion Federation,
> >> which looks like a pro-abortion organization.
> 
> > I don't understand how you can be discussing sources which support my
> > statements when you still claim that the statements are unsupported.
> 
> I don't understand how you can casually dismiss my unbiased sources 
> which show that Roe v. Wade is unrestricted abortion on demand throughout 
> the term of pregnancy and then expect me to accept your pro-abortion
> sources.  (And please leave the preceeding sentence intact, if your
> honesty allows you to do so).  

                                ROE v. WADE
            410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)
 
     Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in
     part:
[...] 
          On the basis of elements such as these,  appellants and  some
     amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is en-
     titled  to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time,  in  whatever
     way,  and for whatever reason she alone chooses.  With this we  do
     not agree.  Appellants'  arguments that Texas either has no  valid
     interest at all in regulating the abortion decision,  or no inter-
     est strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's  sole
     determination,  is unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing
     a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation  in
     areas  protected by that right is appropriate.  As noted above,  a
     State  may  properly assert important  interests  in  safeguarding
     health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting poten-
     tial life.  At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests
     become  sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the  fac-
     tors  that  govern the abortion decision.  The privacy  right  in-
     volved,  therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact,  it is
     not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has
     unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close
     relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the
     Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited
     right of this kind in the past.  Jacobson v.  Massachusetts (1905)
     (vaccination); Buck v. Bell (1927) (sterilization).
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion