home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!cmcl2!option!smezias
- From: smezias@option.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: In which DOD explains why not to vote for Bush.
- Message-ID: <28730@option.GBA.NYU.EDU>
- Date: 18 Aug 92 20:20:51 GMT
- References: <1992Aug18.164057.23032@ncsu.edu> <28729@option.GBA.NYU.EDU>
- Distribution: na
- Organization: NYU Stern School of Business
- Lines: 69
-
- In article <1992Aug18.164057.23032@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
- (Doug Holtsinger), in trying to convince that pro-choice persons can
- vote for Bush, actually makes a good case why pro-choice voters should
- be sure to vote against GHWB:
-
- Deletia repeating lies about `abortion on demand' (which I addressed
- in an earlier post) to get to the central points:
-
- >Now let's take a realistic look at the effect of a Republican win in
- >the fall. The Executive branch has no unilateral power to pass or
- >even to propose a constitutional amendment. It takes three-fourths
- >of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
- >The states are not likely to ratify an amendment banning abortion,
- >even if Congress could manage to muster the two-thirds majority needed
- >to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
-
- Unfortunately, he would also veto the FOCA once it is passed by
- Congress. DOD neglects to mention this, but does remind us of the
- nightmare of having as leader of the country someone who prattles on
- hypocritically about morality and the need for a Constitutional ban on
- all abortions. Symbolic leadership on national issues, especially
- those that are divisive, is important.
-
- >If Bush is re-elected, all he could do is to appoint a Supreme Court
- >justice who may vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. However three justices
- >who were appointed by Reagan and Bush have voted to uphold Roe v. Wade
- >in the last abortion decision. It's not even clear whether Bush will
- >get an opportunity to appoint a justice. And Congress will certainly
- >put up a good fight to prevent Bush from appointing a justice who
- >may vote to overturn Roe.
-
- The burdensome notification requirement was struck down by a bare
- majority, and the last of the Warren Court judges is in his 80s and
- ill health. He has already stated that he will be forced by ill
- health to step down in the near future. Your attempts to misrepresent
- only serve to hightlight the danger that more Bush appointments to the
- Supreme Court represents: an end to a woman's right to reproductive
- freedom and bodily autonomy.
-
- >The Court may not overturn Roe completely. Some restrictions on state
- >abortion legislation could remain. And even if Roe was overturned
- >completely, many states have indicated that they will not pass
- >legislation restricting or prohibiting abortion. Abortion would
- >remain legal even if Roe is overturned.
-
- It would become illegal in some states, thus placing an extreme burden
- on women unlucky enough to live in those states, especially poor women.
-
- >In summary, I believe the controversy surrounding the Republican
- >platform on abortion has been blown way out of proportion. People
- >knew that Bush was opposed to abortion when he was elected in 1988.
- >They knew that he might appoint justices to the Supreme Court who
- >could vote to overturn Roe. This time is no different. The Republican
- >platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion is
- >largely symbolic in nature. President Bush has no power to get that
- >amendment proposed or ratified.
-
- Why would anyone who was pro-choice want to take a chance that DOD's
- rosy scenario about Republicans and abortion rights is true? BTW,
- it's not. The obvious choice on the issue of choice is Clinton. DOD
- tried a series of machinations to argue against this position, but
- leaving out any mention of FOCA and the poor health of the last of the
- Warren era liberal justices is pretty dishonest. Just an oversight,
- DOD?
-
- SJM
-
-
-
-