----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:32 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/19/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Companion case to Roe, striking down > > parts of a "liberalized" statute from Georgia with health/rape/incest > > exceptions. Holding, (7-2) per Blackmun, that a woman has a > constitutional > > right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best > > clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, > > psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her > > physical or mental health." > <snip> > "from six months to birth" is third trimester. Second trimester is 3-6 > months. Sorry, I don't know what I was parsing that as, it wasn't clear to me. And it seemed odd given their finding in Roe v. Wade that "the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life." I liked Roe v. Wade. It drew clear, at least to me, and understandable lines. >It appears that Casey in 1992 recognized that the real standard is >viability and also emphasized that a state may not place undue burdens on >doctors and women for a constitutional medical procedure. I read the decision, and it seems that the standards for requiring some negative effect on the woman's health if a third term abortion is not approved is as far as it went. By not stating a serious effect, one assumes that they knew that they were not overturning previous case law with respect to health...which ws any health effect. So, in effect, it would throw a bone to viability, while making very little in the way of substantial changes. >Under what conditions do you support abortion? Under the same conditions that I would support the choice to have a person die. If it was the life of the mother that was at risk, I don't think the law should require putting one's own life at risk for another. I certainly, as I think does JDG, believe birth control should not only be legal, but is not an immoral act. I think that, at times before division into twins occur, a very strong argument can be made that the person does not yet exist. So, I'm not really bothered by morning after pills. I accept that one cannot simply roll back Roe vs. Wade by fiat, no matter what the court does, but I do not support abortions. I support the concept of the seamless garment of life....as I am opposed to the death penalty too. I'm not opposed to all wars because I think there can be things worse than war for people. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
