home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!taco!csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu!dsh
- From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
- Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.163715.12871@ncsu.edu>
- Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
- Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
- Organization: North Carolina State University
- References: <1992Jul27.192822.23567@menudo.uh.edu> <1992Jul27.220341.247412@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:37:15 GMT
- Lines: 45
-
- In article <1992Jul27.220341.247412@cs.cmu.edu>
- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
-
- >HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
-
- >> This is just something interesting I noted when reading the text of the
- >> Supreme Court's decision. It has been mentioned (at least in passing)
- >> before. While RVW is generally considered as granting women the right to
- >> choose (and has been treated that way by the laws), it actually (as the
- >> text is written) does no such thing. What it does do is prevent the states
- >> from interfering with the DOCTOR's decision vis a vis abortion prior to
- >> the first trimester etc. etc.
- >>
- >> RVW *as written* does not *seem* to grant the choice to women. Obviously
- >> that is how it has turned out in practice. [...]
-
- > No, you didn't suddenly discover a major flaw in Roe, as you
- > seem to believe. I can see that you are basing your erroneous
- > interpretation on a few words in the decision, while ignoring
- > the lengthy discussion of the right to privacy. Perhaps you
- > should read the decision again.
-
- I think Mr. Miller's reading of Roe is correct. The Court ruled
- that the privacy right involved "cannot be said to be absolute",
- and that the state does have an interest in protecting the woman's
- health.
-
- I think the key test of the validity of Mr. Miller's thesis is
- whether or not women have the right to self-abort under Roe.
- Roe allows the states to require licensed physicians to perform
- the abortion procedure; it seems that the state could prohibit
- non-physicians from self-aborting.
-
- The basis for the Court's ruling is the supposition that a first
- trimester abortion performed by a physician is safer than childbirth,
- and so the state cannot restrict first trimester abortions on the
- basis of protecting the woman's health. If self-induced abortions
- were more dangerous than childbirth, then the state could use that
- as a basis for prohibiting (or restricting) self-induced abortions.
-
- >Susan
-
-
- Doug Holtsinger
-
-