home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:31681 talk.politics.misc:39651
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!rja
- From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
- Message-ID: <1992Aug14.093020.4321@hemlock.cray.com>
- Originator: rja@redwood26
- Lines: 29
- Sender: rja@redwood26 (Russ Anderson)
- Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
- References: <1992Aug13.183438.25997@ncsu.edu> <1992Aug13.202758.18277@csrd.uiuc.edu>
- Date: 14 Aug 92 09:30:20 CDT
-
-
- In article <1992Aug13.202758.18277@csrd.uiuc.edu>, saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
- >
- > Why not give (or keep) the choice there? If someone wishes to have
- > an abortion then let her have it and if someone does not want an
- > abortion, then she won't have one? Outlaw forced abortions (makes everyone
- > happy)! What's wrong with that?
-
- Forced abortions are constitutionally prohibited in the Roe v. Wade decision.
-
- From PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
- ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc. (91-744)
-
- ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc., PETITIONERS v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
- SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. (91-902)
- [June 29, 1992]
-
- From the majority opinion (O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter):
-
- "If indeed the woman's interest in deciding whether to bear and beget a
- child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might as readily
- restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to
- terminate it, to further asserted state interests in population control,
- or eugenics, for example."
-
- --
- Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
- ------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
- EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
-