X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:40:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: Some replies...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt422786@drew.edu>, CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes:

>>clearly a business can refuse to hire someone because he practices
>>homosexual sex, as long as the person is made aware of it in advance.
>>Granted, these rules can sometimes be vague, and leave some things to
>>the employer's discretion, like Marge Schott and baseball, or Jimmy
>>the Greek and CBS.

Dr Pizz said this.  I have a for instance for him.  Say the town the
homosexual lived in had only one employer that he was skilled to work
in (and that would allow him a liveable wage).  Would the fact that
his sexual orientation is seen as deviant mean he should have no job
or move?  What about if the employer thought atheists were abnormal,
would the same conditions work?  Make the job a factory producing home
appliances.


> Another question for the experts....are Chief Justices always chosen
> from the ranks of Associate Justices? I thought that the new appointee
> becomes the new Chief if it's the Chief who's retiring....
> **********************************************************************

no -- Rehquist was from the ranks of the Associate Justices, and was
premoted when Scalia was appointed.  Burger on the other hand was
appointed chief justice when he first came on the bench.
Incidentally, I don't see Kennedy as the next chief justice for
Clinton -- it would be good if Clinton appointed his own since he may
not have enough votes to change the court totally, but still the chief
is a key role.   O'Connor would be a better choice -- she's the most
senior of the Reagan set (Stevens is before her but older and more
independant -- wouldn't quite fit) and is a bit less conservative than
Kennedy. Still, best bet would be appoint a new one -- that's if
Rehnquist retires now that his wife died.

> from daylight"; it is one of an _unviable fetus_.  Abortions are not
> performed after fetuses are viable, i.e., capable of being sustained
> out of the womb by medical devices.

not usually (read 99%+ of the time), but for reasons of maternal
health and serious birth defects a tiny amount are, and be assured
anti-abortion activists will use this for all its worth.

>>I am also saying that you are only a small step from being described
>>as the street vernacular of a rectum.
>
> Uh, Rob, if you meant to be sarcastic about calling him an <asshole>,
> then I believe the word you're looking for is ANUS.  Two quotes,
> unavoidably, come to mind:

maybe he felt that anus was too small of a word to use for Robert, so
he widened it, as it were.

>>Subject:      Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
>>The drugs (protagladins) used in association with RU486 have not been
>>approved and it would take 3 years for FDA approval. Long term
>>effects of the drug are not know.  The pill will be abuse and used
>>after the recommended 7-9 wks of gestation. the effects of this are
>>unknown.

[not clark, deleted by accident name]

First, even if Clinton supports it, the company is afraid to market it
because of boycott fears.  Two books on the pill (one "RU-486" by
Lawrence Lader is small and informative) will show its possiblities
and wide use in Europe (esp. France where over a 100,000 women used
it)

>> Since the pill can only be prescribed by physicians, I am curious to
> discover what you mean by "abused".

don't be naive Clark

>>Also some cases of excess bleeding has led for the need for
>>instrumental intervention and transfussion.  I am personally opposed
>>the pill on medical and ethical grounds but regardless from a medical
>>and chemical standpoint caution is warranted.

perhaps if the country was allowing to test it, we could see just what
the flaws are and do something about them.  Keeping it out because of
ethical reasons is especially bad since it has many nonabortion
possiblities.  The negative effects were very small and it is notable
that birth control pills and even childbirth has similar problems.

>
> -T.

Jim gave 2^b as the biggest number using some mathematical terms.  Did
they mean that what number is before the "b" doesn't matter?  i.e. is
9^b not larger than 2^b?

   -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU