From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: Cough Man's hypocrisy
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:10:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.175638.6745@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu 
Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.025135.10239@watson.ibm.com> 
>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>In article <1992Aug27.213923.7964@rigel.econ.uga.edu> 
>>>mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:
>
>>>> Therefore, EVERY state may enact legislation requiring a physician t

>>>> attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks' gestation 
r 
>>>> 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.  You say it yourself later in
this article.  Do you not understand the difference between
finding a law unconstitutional because it is too vague to
be enforced and finding a law unconstitutional because it
contradicts a constitutional right?

>> Her statement that the state *may* enact legislation requiring a
>> physician to attempt to preserve the life of a fetus that is 24 weeks
>> gestation or older is correct.  
>
>You are arguing semantics here.  No state may *enforce* legislation
>which requires the physician to attempt to preserve the life of a
>fetus that is 24 weeks gestation or older, because that legislation
>was struck down by the Supreme Court in Colautti v. Frankin.  States
>may *enact* ANY type of legislation, but that doesn't mean that it's
>Constitutional.
>
I had not previously believed that DOD was stupid.  A compulsive
liar, yes, but not stupid. 

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.  It is
ridiculous to claim that it does.  

>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?

>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.


>> The fact that Colautti v. Franklin
>> struck down a law requiring this because the law did not clearly
>> indicate that the woman was more important than the fetus in no
>> way invalidates this.
>
>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.

Susan





Newsgroups: talk.abortion