From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 06:26:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Oct7.014858.14831@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
> Roe v. Wade is essentially unrestricted abortion-on-demand throughout
> the term of pregnancy.

Still telling the same old lies, Doug?  Your scare tactics won't work
as long as there are people around to correct you.

> In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the states
> may not prohibit third trimester abortions when the abortion is necessary
> to preserve the woman's ``health'' or life, but the Court gave a very broad
> definition to the term ``health'', including emotional and psychological
> health

The court gave a "broad definition" of health in Doe, not in Roe.  Additional
errors you're making are that Doe was in regards to a pre-viability abortion,
and you're attempting to apply that to the case of post-viability abortion; and
that Doe ruled that a Georgia statute was unconstitutionally vague in
its exception based upon whether a pregnancy would "permanently injure her
[a woman's] health."  The woman in question had serious psychological problems,
sufficient to require hospitalization and ongoing psychiatric treatment.
The statue was knocked down because it didn't clearly apply to this woman who
was a patient at a (Georgia) state mental hospital.

You're attempting to imply that this "broad definition" can be stretched to
include any reason that any woman in good mental health can come up with.
Obviously this is not supported by anything you've shown.  Just as obviously,
it is not true.

The speculation of a law professor as to how Supreme Court decisions should be
interpreted is relatively meaningless.  It's what the Supreme Court says that
matters.

Justice Blackmun's court opinion in Colautti v. Franklin (paraphrased):
   "It was during the litigation of Doe v. Bolton that the Court stressed
   the importance of allowing the physician absolute control in
   exercising his best medical judgment, and the Court emphasized the
   fact that although women do have a right to have an abortion, the
   right is not absolute and is not extended to women who want an
   abortion upon demand."

And in the majority decision from Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
   "Nor will courts building upon Roe be likely to hand down erroneous
   decisions as a consequence.  Even on the assumption that the central
   holding of Roe was in error, that error would go only to the strength
   of the state interest in fetal protection, not to the recognition
   afforded by the Constitution to the woman's liberty."

Finally, from Roe v. Wade itself:
  "On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some amici
  argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
  terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
  whatever reason she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree ... "

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion