From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Just Plain LIES!! (was Re: The facts about Roe, Doe, and Colautti)
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:13:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.


With absolutely no shame for *completely* misrepresenting quotes, Doug 
Holtsinger writes:

>First I'd like to present my sources, and then I will address
>the points that you raised. My claim is that Roe v. Wade
>essentially constitutes abortion on demand throughout the term 
>of pregnancy due to the broad definition of "health" given
>by the Supreme Court. 
>
>Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton must be read together: 

As I have said *several* times before, *I* have never said that the two 
cases should not be read together.  What I said is that you cannot 
assume that the discussion of "health" in the Doe opinion applies to the 
"life and health" provision in Roe, regarding third-trimester abortions.

Every objective indication supports this contention.

That you continue to state my position as one in which Roe and Doe are
not to be "read together" is simply a feeble attempt by yourself to cast 
my argument into a form which you figure you can easily attack.

That Roe and Doe are to be read together is not in question.  I have 
stated that every time you repeat the lie that I have said otherwise.

And *you* still refuse to reconcile the *obvious* contradiction between 
your "reading" of Doe and Roe together, and the explicit statements of 
Roe, Doe and Colautti.

And it is *your* argument that suggests that Doe should be read to mean 
that the entire three-stage framework or Roe is meaningless.


>Even ignoring Doe v. Bolton, however, the language in Roe
>concerning the definition of the term "health" is consistent
>with the broad definition given in Doe:
>
>   ----
>
>  "The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant
>   woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.  Specific
>   and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy
>   may be involved.  Maternity, or additional offspring, may
>   force upon the woman a distressful life and future. 
>   Psychological harm may be imminent.  Mental and physical
>   health may be taxed by child care.   There is also the 
>   distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
>   child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into
>   a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise,
>   to care for it.  In other cases, as in this one, the
>   additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed
>   motherhood may be involved.  All these are factors the 
>   woman and her responsible physician necessarily will 
>   consider in consultation."
>
>   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 177 (1973)

Did you really believe that this pathetic lie would pass unscathed?

Why didn't you also cite the paragraph that *immediately* follows in the 
Roe opinion?

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici* 
argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to 
terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for 
whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree."

This alone destroys your entire argument.  But just in case anyone is 
interested in the remainder of the paragraph:

"Appellants' arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in 
regulating the abortion decision, or no interest 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 potential life.  At some point in pregnancy, these 
respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain 
regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.  The 
privacy right involved, 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 an 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. [citations omitted]"


In short, this shows that

  1) Mr. Holtsinger's entire argument is without merit,

  and

  2) Mr. Holtsinger is shamefully deceitful in citing
     quotes out of context--he just plain lies.


>  "I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
>   the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit
>   the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of
>   pregnant women, using the term health in its broadest medical
>   context."
>
>   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 185 (1973) 

Actually, this is from a single concurring opinion by Justice Burger 
which applies to both Roe and Doe.  And once again, you have 
(conveniently) neglected to include an important statement (the 
concluding statement, in this case!) which contradicts your position:

"Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution 
requires abortion on demand."

How many lies can you include in a single post?


>  "The vicissitudes of life produce pregnancies which may be unwanted,
>   or which may impair ``health'' in the broad Vuitch sense of the
>   term, of which may imperil the life of the mother, or which in 
>   the full setting of the case may create such suffering, dislocations,
>   misery, or tragedy as to make an early abortion the only civilized
>   step to take.  These hardships may be properly embraced in the
>   ``health'' factor of the mother as appraised by a person of
>   insight.  Or they may be part of a broader medical judgement
>   based upon what is ``appropriate'' in a given case, though
>   perhaps not ``necessary'' in a strict sense."
>
>   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 190 (1973)

Perhaps one more?  I cannot find this quote *anywhere* in the Roe 
opinions (based upon the reprints of the majority opinion by Blackmun, 
the concurring opinion of Stewart and the dissenting opinion of 
Rehnquist in the US Civil Rights Commission report.

But I did just find a few other interesting quotes!

Earlier, you cited from Roe:

"In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in 
one of the modern abortion statutes are considered.  That opinion and
this one, of course, are to be read together."

What you failed to include, once again, was the *very next* paragraph:

"This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the 
respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical 
and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the 
profound problems of the present day.  The decision leaves the State 
free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of 
pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to 
recognize state interests."

You just can't keep those fibs from coming out of your keyboard, can 
you?


Here's another quote from Roe that demonstrates the distinction between 
the Court's treatment of the three distinct phases of pregnancy:

"Measured against these standards, Art. 1106 of the Texas Penal Code, in 
restricting legal abortions to those 'procured or attempted by medical 
advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,' sweeps too 
broadly.  The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed 
early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single 
reason, 'saving' the mother's life, the legal justification for the 
procedure.  The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional 
attack made upon it here."



>The following six authors support my argument that Roe and Doe
>give a broad interpretation to the term "health":
 
And I'm sure that all have are as credible as *you*!


>  "In Roe and in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), the
>   Supreme Court has held that the term `health'' includes both the
>   physical and mental condition of the mother."
>
>   26 Vanderbilt Law Review at 829 (1973), Mark B, Anderson et al,
>   "Abortion after Roe and Doe: A Proposed Statute" 

This does not even support your position!

There is no question that a serious threat to the mother's *mental* 
health is covered by the "life or health" provision in Roe regarding the 
third trimester.  The Court has never confused this with the expansive 
treatment of "health" with regard to the first-trimester.

Only *you* and your so-called scholarly sources have been confused on 
this point.

I pointed this out in my last post, but you ignore it, as usual.


>   "Summary and Analysis of State Laws Relating to Abortion",
>   Barbara Kaiser, Harriet F. Pilpel, and Eve W. Paul,
>   in Family Planning, Contraception, Voluntary Sterilization
>   and Abortion: An Analysis of Laws and Policies in the United
>   States, Each State and Jurisdiction.
>
>   A Report of the Office for Family Planning
>   Health Services Administration
>   U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
>   1978
>
>   Prepared by the Alan Guttmacher Institute
>
>
>  "The landmark events in establishing the basic law governing abortion
>   in the United States were the January 1973 decisions of the United 
>   States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade[1] and Doe v. Bolton[2]. [...]
>
>   The Roe and Doe decisions have these results:  [...]
>
>   (3) After the fetus is viable, a State may regulate in its interest,
>   even to the extent of prohibiting abortion unless to save the life
>   or health (including the mental health) of the woman. [...]
>
>   Roe and Doe held the right to abortion to be a fundamental right,
>   but the decisions also involved the medical profession in the
>   decision-making process. A corollary is that a woman's decision
>   to exercise her rights is in part dependent on the availability
>   of health institutions and professionals willing to perform 
>   abortions."

How do you think this supports your position?!

This says only that health professionals cannot be *forced* to perform 
an abortion that they do not feel is indicated.  It is incumbent upon 
the woman to find a physician who is willing to perform the abortion.



>   _A Lawyer Looks at Abortion_, Lynn D. Wardle and Mary Anne Q. Wood,
>   Brigham Young University Press, 1982, pp. 137--138.

I checked--this reference should be to pps. 133-134.


>  "The Supreme Court has defined health in some contexts to include ``all
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's
>   age--relevant to the well-being of the patient[50]''. If the post-
                                                          ^^
>   viability abortion is performed because it is ``necessary'' to avoid
>   the burdens that pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood would place
>   on a woman's emotional and psychological health, could not her doctor
>   assume that it would be better if a method were chosen and every step
>   taken during the abortion itself to insure that the fetus did not
>   survive[51]?

[remainder omitted]

Does not this argument, coupled with the fact that the Court *has* 
upheld the right of a State to require protections for the viable fetus 
(just not those in the statute of Colautti--see Planned Parenthood of 
Kansas City v. Ashcroft) suggest that post-viable abortion are *not* one 
of the contexts to which the broad definition of health cited above?!


>This last quote is from a professor of law named Lynn D. Wardle,
>who appears to be the same person that you quote in one of your
>sources.  It appears that this particular author has held conflicting  
>opinions on Roe v. Wade, since the opinion above does not match
>the opinion which you quote.

This is rather interesting.  I note that there are actually two authors 
of the aforementioned source, and that the following quote from the 
source (which was published a year after the source I used):

"A state desiring to protect its interest in the potential life of a 
viable fetus should accept the Supreme Court's invitation to prohibit 
any post-viability abortion unless it is necessary to preserve the life 
or health of the pregnant woman.  Nearly half of the states presently 
conform to the standard.

"In many states, the exception to the prohibition of post-viability 
abortions is allowed only to prevent death or 'permanent impairment,' 
'imminent peril,' 'severe and long-lasting,' or other variously 
described threats to the woman's health.  The judicial sustainability of 
such descriptions is questionable, as they appear to require something 
more than the necessary preservation of health.  But given the fact that 
a broad reading of the 'health' exception would subvert the state's 
constitutional right to prohibit post-viability abortion, such efforts 
are commendable and should be upheld."

is very telling.  First of all, the quote demonstrates the fact that, 
the practice of post-viability abortion laws simply does not support 
your argument.  Furthermore, it demonstrates that the authors are 
stating their own conjecture in this source.

Most importantly, there is a dramatic contrast between the objective 
tone (or at least, not blatantly-biased tone) of the first source, which 
I cited, and the blatant pro-life bias in the above statements.

This latter source smacks of someone who has gotten "religion" and has 
abandoned scholarly research for political partisanism.


>You have provided a single source
>from this author which supports your argument, and none of your
>other sources support your argument.  I think you need to resolve
>the conflicting opinions given by this particular author before
>your argument can be given any credence at all.  

See above.  Perhaps you could argue that we should be very careful in 
evaluating the author's earlier work.

However, even those portions of the argument presented in my earlier 
post that are based upon the author's earlier work are clear, reasoned, 
and have not been attacked in *substance* by anything you have said.

That position is supported by the *explicit* statements of the Court in 
the cases of Roe, Doe and Colautti.

That position is also supported by absence of any mention of your 
extreme and absurd position in three major constitutional law texts (S. 
Goldman, Braveman and Banks, and Rossum and Tarr), as well as one source 
devoted to abortion (Drucker).


>There is one Federal court case that is also relevant. 
>In Margaret S. v. Edwards, a Federal district court struck
>down a Louisiana abortion statute which only allowed post-
>viability abortions necessary to prevent "permanent impairment"
>to the mother's health.

>  "Roe provides that the State, because of its legitimate interest
>   in potential life, may regulate and even forbid abortions after
>   a fetus becomes viable, ``except when it is necessary to
>   preserve the life or health of the mother.'' Roe, 410 U.S.
>   at 164, 93 S.Ct. at 732.  The first sentence of ... [a section
>   of the Louisiana abortion statute] while appearing to follow
>   the guidelines set forth in Roe, uses the phrase ``to prevent
>   permanent impairment to her health.'' This is not the same
>   standard articulated in Roe, preservation of maternal
>   health. [...] The Court finds that the requirement of
>   permanent impairment impermissibly restricts the meaning
>   of Roe."
>
>   Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. at 196 (1980)


A "permanent impairment" and a *serious* threat to health are not 
synonymous phrases.  There are many *serious* conditions that may heal 
in time.  This quote does *not* support your contention that there is 
only a single 'health' standard defined by Roe to apply to abortion in 
all phases of pregnancy.

Furthermore, even if the lower court ruling *did* support your position, 
it would be rather strange to suggest that we should appeal to lower 
court rulings to draw conclusions that contradict the *explicit* 
statements of the Supreme Court.


So, it turns out that four of your "six sources" do not support your 
position!


-------------------

>> [... Doe v. Bolton ...]
>> In its opinion, the SC 
>> ruled that the use of the term "health," within the *Georgia 
>> statute*, could be interpreted broadly enough to comply with 
>> the first trimester rights recognized in Roe.  
>
>That is not correct.  The original Georgia statute gave the 
>following exception for abortion:
>
>  "(1) A continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of
>   the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure
>   her health;"
>
>   Doe v. Bolton, 410 US at 202 (1973)
>
>That restriction cannot be read broadly enough to comply with
>the "first trimester rights" in Roe, which is abortion on demand.

Since the *original* statute did not come before the Supreme Court, this 
is totally irrelevant.  This provision of the statute had already been 
struck and removed by a lower court, and was not considered by the 
Court.


>> [...]
>> Doe v. Bolton, specifically, did *not* discuss, suggest or 
>> intend that the interpretation of the term "health" in the 
>> context of the Georgia statute was to be used as the 
>> interpretation of "health" with respect to the exceptions 
>> required by Roe for post-viability abortion prohibitions.
>
>Roe and Doe must be read together, so your statement is
>not correct. 
>
>  "That opinion [Doe v. Bolton] and this one, of course, 
>   are to be read together."
>
>   Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 184 (1973)

More quotes out of context (plain lies!).  See the statements that 
immediately followed this, cited earlier in this post.

You don't seem to understand what it means to read two things together.  
I suppose that if the Court had stated in Doe that "The woman wanting 
the abortion has blonde hair" you would assert that this must be read 
with Roe to mean that *Jane Roe* had blonde hair!


> [...]
> In fact, while Mr. Holtsinger has claimed that my earlier 
> post suggested that Roe and Doe were inconsistent, it is his 
> *own* argument that actually suggests this, by suggesting 
> the Roe's extensive framework, distinguishing between the 
> first, second, and third stages of pregnancy, was overruled 
> by the companion Doe decision handed down at the same time.  

No, that's not correct.  The Court upheld a lower court's
ruling on the broad definition of the term "health", which
did not conflict with Roe in any manner. None of the opinion
given in Doe conflicts with Roe. 


[Lots of stuff about my sources omitted.]

>Also, I've given you 6 independent sources which agree with
>one another, and they conflict with your single source. 

This is simply not true--though I doubt it is important, since I have no 
doubt that you could easily find 100 sources to support your position--I 
just doubt that they would be very credible.  (I'll have to see to 
believe.)


>In summary, you have one source which supports your claims,
>but the author gives conflicting claims in another source. 

This is not true either.  But even if we assume that all of my direct 
sources can not be relied upon, and must be independently verified, you 
have presented *nothing* to dispute the substance of the argument I 
present, or the many citations from Supreme Court opinions which are 
*not* taken out of context (unlike yours) and which EXPLICITLY REJECT 
YOUR CLAIMS!


[Loads of statements saying "That's irrelevant" omitted.]

>Are you now claiming that Roe and Doe must be read together?
>Thank you for agreeing with me. 

I have *never* said the opposite.  Only *you* have claimed that I did.


>I've given you 6 independent sources which support my argument.
>The only support for your argument comes from an author who has
>written conflicting opinions on Roe and Doe.  This same author
>has written an opinion which supports my argument.  You need
>to resolve this conflict before your argument can be given 
>any support whatsoever.  

Once again, you have not.

Additionally, the fact that the author of an argument appears to have, 
later, changed her opinions does *not* suggest that you may toss aside 
that argument without *any* substantive response.

The argument stands on its own--it does not miraculously disappear if 
the author stops supporting it.

This particular argument is *very* convincing, as far as I am concerned, 
and is very strongly supported by the explicit statements of the Court.

You, on the other hand, seem to be able to support your argument only by 
perpetrating plain *lies*, by consistently quoting from Court opinions 
out of context.

You also refuse to substantively address the main facets of my argument, 
probably because you are unable to do so.


In sum, your last post proves that you cannot be trusted to honestly 
represent facts, and as such, you have no credibility.

My earlier suspicion that you are unable to distinguish your political 
opinions from your "study" of the actual law has been confirmed in 
spades.  You shamefully lie to support your arguments.

As such, I shall not bother to respond to any further arguments put 
forth by yourself, unless, by some shocking turn of events, you appear 
to have made a faithful attempt to refute the *substance* of my 
arguments.

I do not have any more time to waste on this meaningless "dialog."


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion