From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Hall)
Subject: Re: DID BUSH KILL HIS CHANCES BY NOT ATTACKING FOCA?
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:11:09 GMT

In <nyikos.721966568@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov10.162945.20099@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

[Follow-ups directed to talk.abortion only.]

>>[Some things deleted]

>>[RE: The Maryland Abortion Referendum]
>>
>>The pro-lifers went on to say that pro-choicers should therefore
>>vote to strike down the new law, and make the state legislature
>>"get it right next time". Even if RvW were overturned, the old
>>law would still be in place, and it was one of the most liberal
>>in the country. [They left it to pro-choice organizations to
>>tell everyone what this "liberal" law really was.]

>They were in a dilemma about that: if they had published how liberal
>the old law was, a lot of doctrinaire pro-lifers could not have stomached
>voting for such a watered-down referendum.  It was bad enough in 
>Arizona, where lots of pro-lifers abstained because the constitutional
>amendment would have ALLOWED the legislature to pass laws granting
>exceptions for assault rape and incest.  To all too many pro-lifers,
>compromise is a dirty word.

I don't think you follow me. The _pro-life_ side argued that the old
law was liberal. Their goal was to win the votes of moderate
pro-choicers, who might have thought that the new law went too far.
The criticism was that pro-lifers were portraying the old law as
being far more liberal than it actually was.

You really can't compare the Maryland and Arizona referendums like
this. In Arizona, a law restricting abortions was defeated, but 
you can argue that this was due to the efforts of pro-lifers who 
felt that it didn't go far enough. In Maryland, a law guaranteeing
access to abortion was supported by 60% of the voters. This didn't
happen because pro-lifers were inflexible...it happened because
there weren't enough of them.

>>BTW, I haven't heard anyone say anything yet about the parental
>>notification clause...it had an interesting twist. Instead of
>>judicial bypass, it had physician bypass. This means that 
>>notification could be waived by the doctor

>read: the abortionist

Yes, the doctor who performs the abortion. I don't like to
use the word "abortionist", because I think it is misleading. Most
physicians who provide abortions also provide a variety of other
services.

However, I am a staunch believer in Political Correctness, and
I always make an effort to call people by their preferred titles,
no matter how misleading or inaccurate they are. If "abortionist" 
is now the proper term, then I am certainly willing to use it. I
would like to offer my heartfelt apologies to any abortionists
I might have offended.

>> at the clinic. This
>>seemed kind of insulting to me: I think that doctors will 
>>already refuse to perform an abortion on a minor if she's 
>>clearly out of her depth.

>The law is insulting to me for the opposite reason: I have yet to
>hear of an abortionist turning down a minor who wanted an abortion.
>If Charles Don Hall knows of any cases, I'd be extremely interested.

Well, I tried to research this, but it turns out they have this
stupid thing called "doctor-patient confidentiality", which apparently
means that I can't rummage through the files at the local clinic. It seems
that I have to get something called a "subpeona", which I think they
sell at Radio Shack. I'll try to buy one on my lunch break. (Hmmph.
"Free Country", indeed! ) I'll also try to find some minors so I can 
ask them if they've ever been refused abortions. 

[This research is being provided as a service of the North American 
Applied Philosophy Association: "Solving all your problems for you 
since 1647."]

>Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity