HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:57:20 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep6.053728.5495@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>My impression is that there are very few doctors who will perform
>3rd trimester abortions in the country (you probably can count
>them on one of your hands), and will only do so for medical emergencies.
>I believe there was an article in the NYT earlier this year on one
>of them.

Most major cities in states where 3rd trimester abortions are legal
have a doctor or two that will perform them.  That is what the OR
protests in Wichita (or was it Kansas City?) were about last summer.

THAT clinic was the one where 3rd trimester abortions were being
performed and that is why it was picked.

-> Abortion: The Dreaded Complication, PART II
-> Originally appearing in The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 2, 1981
-> by Liz Jeffries and Rick Edmonds
-> Reprinted in The Congressional Record, April 21, 1986, S 4621
-> 
->   "  ...
-> 
->      Only one large-scale study has been done of live  births  after
->    abortions--by  George  Stroh  and  Dr. Alan Hinman in upstate New
->    York from July 1970 through December 1972 (a period during  which
->    abortion  was  legal in New York alone). It turned up 38 cases of
->    live births in a sample of 150,000 abortions.
-> 
->      Other studies, including one that found signs of life in  about
->    10  percent  of the prostaglandin abortions at a Hartford, Conn.,
->    hospital, date from the mid-1970s. No one is so naive as to think
->    there  is  reliable  voluntary  reporting  of  live births in the
->    present climate, according to Dr. Cates of the Center for Disease
->    Control."
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:22:13 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <kKaDr*gX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

I said:
>> If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
>> mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human

Mr. Prichett says:
>So, do you want to apply this logic to the critically ill?

When it is possible for the critically ill to return to an
existance as a *fetus* *inside* *a* *woman's* *uterus*, then this
question might conceivably make some amount of sense. What are
you trying to ask, Mr. Prichett? 

-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:48:31 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:

> From article <aemqqB3w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, by cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org 
> [lengthy quotes from Franklin and Jefferson deleted:]
> > There is no conflict between the two quotes.  Note that both men acknowledg
> > God freely; and (though not explicit here) the "one code of morality" to
> > which Jefferson refers would be the morality of the Christian religion.
> 
> Note that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. He did not personally
> believe in any organized religion but, rather, believed that religion was a
> personal matter between a man and his maker.

That is my understanding as well.  Interestingly, during Jefferson's
campaign for the Presidency, the subject of whether or not he was a
Christian actually came up and was debated by pro- and anti-Jefferson
people.  (I am assuming the Jefferson himself did not comment on this
subject, at least during the campaign.)  The extraordinary lesson from this
is that the _subject_ of a candidate's Christianity was a proper (relevant)
thing to bring into public consideration.

> I seriously doubt that the "one code of morality" he referred to was the
> "Christian" code. Jefferson was a bit suspicious about some so-called
> "Christian morality". I suspect, rather, a "universal" code (which, of
> course, would be heavily influenced by Christian morality, since that was a
> major influence upon Jefferson's thought).

Perhaps.  I do know that, while he was President, Jefferson designed the
school curriculum to be used in Washington, D.C., and that study of the
Bible was a significant part of that curriculum.

> It's always unwise to infer too much from a one-paragraph quotation.

Granted.  One hopes that such quotes are representative.

> As for the issue of prayer and government: I suspect Jefferson really had
> no problem with that, but probably would have been upset if only
> representatives of one religion were allowed to lead these prayers.

I have no input on that one; anyone have some historical knowledge that
would shed light on this?

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:04:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep10.172319.2004@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> Health care is an unlimited business expense and an unlimited non-taxed
|> income benefit...this is a tax subsidy worth billions upon billions
|> of dollars.  The American treasury has given the health care industry
|> an unlimited blank cheque.

The whole point of this is to encourage the businesses to pay for
their employees' health care.  There's not much difference between
this and having the government pay for the medical care straight out
of the treasury.  I think you're mistaken about who benefits, though.

|> Only the very rich have significant tax advantages in the US.

I'm curious.  Just what is your tax burden in Canada (including VAT
and things like that)?  Is Canada just more efficient at managing
their money?

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Who keeps chopping the subj
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:01:01 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

See subject.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5172 alt.politics.clinton:5146 alt.politics.bush:4905
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:17:23 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <348Dr*8X0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>Have you been on another planet for the last 12 years?  The Supreme Court has
>never been even close to being a rubber stamp for President Reagans or Bush!
>I think that YOU are the one who needs to go back to civics class.

In the late 1930's and early 1940's, there was a great deal of
concern that Franklin Roosevelt was exerting an inordinate amount
of influence over the selection of Supreme Court justices, thus
"loading" the court with justices that were sympathetic to his
personal agenda and plans. The same concerns have been raised
recently w.r.t. Mr. Bush's nominees. If you will recall your own
civics class, Mr. Prichett, the Supreme Court is the body
empowered to decide the constitutionality of any legislative act
initiated by the legislative or executive branches. If a chief
executive can ensure that the members of the Supreme Court will
approve his actions through gratitude or political paybacks,
suddenly a great deal of unpleasantness aimed at social and
ethnic minorities becomes possible.

Is that clear enough for you?

Ben Gamble states:
>> I guess if Americans are willing to let their Executive become a king,
>> then that's their decision.

>President Bush has never acted like a king.

I'm rather uncomfortable with how the suppression of media access
during Desert Storm was handled. I'm uncomfortable with the
notion of "executive privilege" officially invoked by Richard
Nixon, and used to some extent by all the succeeding presidents.
I'm uncomfortable with the distance between the wealthy
Presidential candidates and the rest of us with 9 to 5 jobs and a
$100K mortgage to pay. These kinds of things are the hallmarks of
a privileged class very similar to that of the French nobility
under the Bourbons, a rather unpleasant association given the
ending of the Bourbon dynasty -- mass execution by guillotine.

King is not an exact description, but even you can't claim that
President Bush lives with the same kind of restrictions on his
life that you and I do.

>Actually, your quote sounds quite
>elitist.  Are YOU the one who wants a king?

"If I have the choice, I prefer to be governed by the competent.
If I have no choice, I am obligated to act in such a way as to
facilitate the creation of a choice." - Robespierre


>                                                Jim Pritchett

-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:21:10 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <BuBnAG.5p6@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>What do you know?  We agree about welfare.  Unfortunately for you, the 
>"Family Values" mantra that your Republican friends are waving makes a pretty
>narrow definition of "family", and excludes a *large* chunk of the population
>in the process -- and then insists that the only *proper* families are the
>ones in conformance with the new standard.  I wonder how long it'd be before
>it's written into law, if the Republican brownshirts get their way?

You obviously didn't listen to Bush's speech very well.  He specifically 
addressed unwed mothers and extended families.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics,rice.galor
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:16:25 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <17hDr*sX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>Wrong.  Jesus was NEVER open-minded.  He never said a single word about "mutual
>respect" or "tolerance."  He did say:

>"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:  I am not come to
>destroy, but to fulfill.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
>one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
>Matthew 5:17-18

>Those are not the words of someone trying to repeal the Old Testament.

Doesn't this seem to say that the old Hebrew religious laws should be
in effect FOREVER, and should hence still be in effect today?  Does
this include the Hebrew laws about abortion (allowed until the moment
when the crown of the baby's head exits)?  I don't think you realize
what you just said you should be following here, Jim.

>Jesus said this.  There is no "tolerance" here.  There is no "philosophy" here.
>Jesus said that he is the Son of God.  You either believe him, or you are already
>condemned.

Well, then I guess by your lights I'm already condemned.  But then, if
the view of God that you give us here is correct, I think I would just
as soon be condemned.  Fortunately for me, though, I don't think that
God is anywhere near the intolerant, unjust, vindictive being that you
portray him as.

>> Jesus says to love your fellow man.  Isn't that what homosexual men do
>> better than all us straight guys?  (BIG smiley here....)

>If you loved Jesus, you wouldn't be here perverting His commandment like that.
>In fact, if you had any respect at all for Him, you wouldn't have written what
>you have.

Which commandment was that that you think was being repudiated?


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:23:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.160138.16096@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>
>Yes -- by design.  If you can't pay the bill, you're hardly in a
>position to complain about waiting in line.  In Canada, EVERYBODY
>waits in line.  This is progress?
>

The only lines there are, are for elective non-emergency surgery, and
these are rarely for more than a couple of weeks.

>|> The so-called private American system is as socialized as any in
>|> the world...except it is a caste socialism, with immense subsidization
>|> of health care for particular elite classes, and hardly any for others.
>
>This is an interesting claim.  In what way is health care for the
>elite immensely subsidized in the United States?
>

Health care is an unlimited business expense and an unlimited non-taxed
income benefit...this is a tax subsidy worth billions upon billions
of dollars.  The American treasury has given the health care industry
an unlimited blank cheque.

>|> Canadians are not crossing the border in droves to receive care,
>|> and although there are occassionally delays for elective surgery,
>|> polls always show Canadians are among the most satisfied people
>|> in the world with our health care system.
>
>Sure...especially the people who aren't paying for it.  Why don't you
>tell us what the taxes are like in Canada?
>

Only the very rich have significant tax advantages in the US.  The
upper middle class may be at a slight tax disadvantage compared to
their American counterparts, but an upper middle class Canadian
who manages their money wisely can do as well if not better than
their American counterpart in the long term because of the incentives
for retirement savings in the Canadian tax system.

FICA levels the playing field between the middle classes in the two
countries, and the Canadian poor are much better off.

Gerald
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525


AF> We've seen Clinton's plan.  It is a vehement version of the 1990 tax
AF> increase and spending since then.  Bush MIGHT go for that if it was
AF> proposed, but Clinton WILL.  If you think that more of the same is a
AF> good idea, vote for Clinton.  If you think that more of the same is a
AF> bad idea, then the only chance you've got is a vote for Bush.

   This makes a LOT of sense Andy...NOT! What you are saying is if we want
   a change, don't change anything, and if we wants things the same, change
   them. Take a long hard look at what you wrote and you will see how
   laughable it is!

AF> -andy

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                                                                                                                            
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4861 alt.politics.clinton:4201
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 23:33:41 GMT
 <1992Sep2.161707.28933@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> <1992Sep2.210243.3999@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep2.210243.3999@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:

> In article <1992Sep2.161707.28933@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
> >golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> >>In article <vycBr*qV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > 
> >>>(Hypothetical because the press won't press Slick Willie with any embarassing
> >>>questions.  They want him to win.)
> >>>
> You mean like have you slept with a bimbo, dodged the draft, or smoked 
> marijuana?

Until the recent furor about the bias of the press, they didn't ask those questions.
Actually, the only one being asked now is about the draft.  The truth about Slick
Willie's draft dodging is finally starting to be revealed.  They did ask some of the
embarasssing questions back during the primaries because they really wanted one
of the "more liberal" candidates to win.

> 
> >>>[Press]
> >>>  Yeah, free lunch indeed!  It is estimated that your health plan alone would
> >>>  cost half of the entire profits of all the businesses in America!  I wonder
> >>>  how many jobs that will cost?
> >>
> There was a post in the net last night that quoted a study that concluded
> that Bush's do nothing policy will cost 2 Million more jobs than Clinton's

That study did NOT account for the jobs that will be lost when Slick Willie wipes
out 1/2 of the corporate profits in the country.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Li
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525

FJM> In <3306.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us
FJM> (David Brooks)  writes:

FJM> >FJM> It hardly seems that it is necessary to CRIMINALIZE this in order
FJM> to
FJM> >FJM> make sure that someone gets help.  After all, isn't the state
FJM> allowed
FJM> >FJM> to determine that someone is a danger to themself or others and
FJM> put
FJM> >FJM> them into treatment that way?

FJM> >FJM> Just out of curiousity, what do these kinds of stupid laws
FJM> mandate in
FJM> >FJM> the way of sentencing?

FJM> >   I highly doubt that suicide is considered "criminal" in any state.
FJM> In
FJM> >   California, it is a misdemeanor, and is used strictly to ensure
FJM> that

FJM> Uh, aren't "misdemeanors" also 'criminal'?

   I may be wrong here, I'm certainly no lawyer, but I was under the
   impression that lawbreaking wasn't considered "criminal" until it
   constitutes a felony. I believe that misdemeanors are considered
   "infractions" not "crimes". Or is it a crime to drive 56mph on the
   Loop? There may also be a bit of difference between the way these terms
   are used in Texas and in California. I certainly would not claim to
   understand Texas law in the least....(I live here now, but I ain't from
   here, and the laws here are quite different from many other states.)

   Any lawyers out there who could clear this up? I'd be really interested
   to know exactly how "crime" and "criminal" are defined...


FJM> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak
FJM> for me.

   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                                                                                                
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4844 alt.politics.clinton:4163
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 18:22:05 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
Distribution: usa
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Sep5.164508.16214@europa.lonestar.org> (tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics), tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
> In <21424@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> >Every day children survive abortions only to be killed by the doctor after
> >being born.  This is a well documented fact.  This is what "pro-choice"
> >stands for.  The return of the right of infanticide.
> 
> Here's a clue.  You can't write things like this and still expect to be taken
> seriously.  People will check to see who wrote this and then forever discount
> what you have to say.
> -- 
> Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
> tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
> 

If anyone would like to know that John F. Haugh II is completely off base please read
_Roe v Wade Was Followed by a Decrease in Neonatal Homicide_ in the June 10, 1992
issue of JAMA.  To quote the article "...the homicide rates fro children during the
first hour of life decreased from 1.41 to 0.44 between these same periods, as did
the homicide rates of infants in the first 7 days of life and the first 28 days of
life. ... The present results indicate that, although the overall homicide rate in
America increased after Roe v Wade, the homicide rate for infants less than 1 month
old decreased significantly.  Thus it appears possible that neonatal homicide was
reduced by Roe v Wade." (Rates are per 100,000 people per year.  The rates for infants
up to 28 days old are per 100,000 live births.  The periods studied were 1963-1972
(pre-Roe) and 1974-1983 (post-Roe).)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria L Boyd PhD

boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu