BoatBanter.com - This is not a test

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - This is not a test (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/97533-not-test.html)

This is not a test

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:02:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a
patriarchal belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method
to control women.

Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch

Ahh...the Fetus Rights Movement, a division of the Fundamentalist Borg
Church, no doubt.
You are truly unbelievable. On one hand you are for freedom of expression,
thought and to a degree, deed.
But on the other, all above is subject to your approval and beliefs. Those
that don't subscribe are lacking in intelligence,
rightwing religious nut cases, schitt heads or dumbfochs.

Do you have any idea of how narrow minded you are?

What Harry knows about anything can be written on the tip of a stick
pin using a railroad spike as a chisel and a twelve pound sledge
hammer as a striker.

In 72 point Gothic script.

Ahhh...it's Good Job, Brownie, the one whose etec outboard puts more
gasoline back in the tank than it uses for each hour it operates.

This is not a test

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a
patriarchal belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method
to control women.

Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch

Ahh...the Fetus Rights Movement, a division of the Fundamentalist Borg
Church, no doubt.

You are truly unbelievable. On one hand you are for freedom of expression,
thought and to a degree, deed.
But on the other, all above is subject to your approval and beliefs. Those
that don't subscribe are lacking in intelligence,
rightwing religious nut cases, schitt heads or dumbfochs.

Do you have any idea of how narrow minded you are?

Eisboch

You seem to have it completely wrong. While I disapprove of Palin
continuing her late in life pregnancy* once she knew she was going to
have a baby with "problems," I'd not want to do anything to prevent her
from going full term. Her choice. I'm not pushing my beliefs at her.

What she and McBush want to do is take that "choice" away from women
who think otherwise. They, not I, want to dictate their approval and
beliefs on women.

Big difference.

And the difference carries over to my feelings about religion, too. So
long as you are not hurting anyone, I don't care what religion you
practice in your house of worship, in your home, or in your privately
funded school. That's your choice. But don't try to shove those
religious beliefs in my face, via legislation, judicial decisions, or
signing statements.

* BTW, there is a very interesting and juicy rumor floating about
regarding Ms. Palin and that pregnancy. It's too salacious for even me
to repeat it here or discuss it before the story breaks.

This is not a test

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:

:Eisboch wrote:
: "hk" wrote in message :
. ..
: : Ain't that the truth. It is amazing and disgusting how the far
right uses : religion. If there is a hell, they'll all burn in it for
hypocrisy's sake : alone.
: : Right beside the "pro-choicers" who condemn women for choosing not
to abort : a child with a handicap.
: :
:Pro-choicers do not force their beliefs on anti-abortionists, ...
:

Well, yeah, they do.

:
:... but :anti-abortionists want to force their beliefs on pro-choicers.
:

I know it's hard for folks like you, but let's try and look at this
from the other side and then form an analogy that will feel the same
to you as abortion does to them.

Suppose I believe I should be able to murder unwanted people pretty
much at will for any reason or for no reason at all other than that
they inconvenience me. You disagree and go on about the sanctity of
human life and how killing them is wrong and want laws to stop me. My
response is that very few of the two leggers are actually human, so
killing the others is no worse than cutting a fingernail.

So, wouldn't there be something wrong with you NOT wanting to 'force
your view' on me?

That's how they feel about abortion. For you it's an intellectual
question. For them it's a case of whether murder is acceptable.
Discussion of the issue as if it is just an intellectual question for
them, as well, is simply a waste of time and effort and pretending
that there is something 'wrong' because they don't view it the way you
do is merely specious.

Your supposition is silliness.
If the anti-abortionists were truly against killing human beings, they
would be opposed to capital punishment and war. But most aren't; they
pervert their religious texts to justify capital punishment and war.

In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a patriarchal
belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method to control
women.

"republicans believe the right to life starts at conception and ends with
birth"
barney frank.

That's pretty much it.

This is not a test

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a patriarchal
belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method to control
women.

Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch

What rights?

Roe v. Wade states that abortions are permissible for any reason, up
until the point a fetus becomes viable, which means potentially able to
live outside a mother's womb. Viability typically takes place somewhere
between 24 and 28 weeks. Abortion is also available after viability when
necessary to protect a woman's health.

"Unborn child," by the way, is a favorite phrase of those who want to
reverse Roe v. Wade. It is an emotionally charged term, and elicits
precisely the response they want.

The proper term is embryo or fetus. In humans, the fetal stage doesn't
even begin until nearly three months into a pregnancy. Until then, it is
just an embryo.

Another poster just brought up the fly in the ointment that the
anti-choice folks just don't want to discuss, the fact that for many of
them, the right to life ends at birth. You know how that goes...no
abortions because that fetus in your womb is a life, but once that fetus
is born, well, it's pretty much on its own, and if it dies because of
inadequate health care or environmental conditions, or whatever, well,
that's just too bad, hey?

This is not a test

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:36:02 -0500, thunder wrote:

There were a few bright spots, the military, especially the Coast Guard.
They began pre-positioning resources several days ahead of the storm.
Of the 60,000 stranded by the storm, the Coast Guard rescued 33,500.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/
katrina_what_the_media_missed.html

This is not a test

On Sep 1, 1:16*am, tankfixer wrote:
In article , raymond-
says...

"tankfixer" wrote in message
...
dying.

and telling people with nowhere to go and no cars to get there is rather
hopeless.
but nothing is ever georges fault is it.

If he had acted before being asked you would be howling how he excceed
his authority

straw man arguments is all you ever have.

PKB son.

The president does not have dictatorial powers, no matter what your
paranoid mind may think.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

What about the presumptive nominee?

This is not a test

"hk" wrote in message
. ..

You seem to have it completely wrong. While I disapprove of Palin
continuing her late in life pregnancy* once she knew she was going to have
a baby with "problems," I'd not want to do anything to prevent her from
going full term. Her choice. I'm not pushing my beliefs at her.

No. You simply indicated that she was selfish, irresponsible and should
have aborted the child, amoung other things.

That's not pushing your beliefs?

You know Harry, you often claim to be misunderstood, or that others miss
your points.

You, more than most, should realize that the art of communication is
two-sided.
You a responsibility to accurately and clearly state your views so that
others have a reasonable chance of interpreting them properly. In a forum
like this, that responsibility extends across a broad range of readers.

You seem to discard anyone who doesn't "get it" as being less intelligent,
being poorly educated, or otherwise inferior to your self granted and
percieved lofty intellect.

That's not an indication of intelligence. It's a confirmation of
arrogance.

Eisboch

This is not a test

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

You seem to have it completely wrong. While I disapprove of Palin
continuing her late in life pregnancy* once she knew she was going to have
a baby with "problems," I'd not want to do anything to prevent her from
going full term. Her choice. I'm not pushing my beliefs at her.

No. You simply indicated that she was selfish, irresponsible and should
have aborted the child, amoung other things.

That's not pushing your beliefs?

Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively seeking
judicial or legislative solutions, or attacking anti-abortion protesters.

I don't give a damn if the righties want to tell us how awful abortion
is, or how wonderful Jesus is, or whatever, so long as they do it from a
private soapbox or a pulpit, and don't try to push their agenda through
the courts or legislation.

I'm entitled to present my opinion about her pregnancy. I'm not entitled
to make her conform to my opinion.

Is that simple enough?

You know Harry, you often claim to be misunderstood, or that others miss
your points.

You, more than most, should realize that the art of communication is
two-sided.
You a responsibility to accurately and clearly state your views so that
others have a reasonable chance of interpreting them properly. In a forum
like this, that responsibility extends across a broad range of readers.

You seem to discard anyone who doesn't "get it" as being less intelligent,
being poorly educated, or otherwise inferior to your self granted and
percieved lofty intellect.

That's not an indication of intelligence. It's a confirmation of
arrogance.

Eisboch

Do you get it now?

Did I make it simple enough?

:}

This is not a test

"hk" wrote in message
. com...

Eisboch wrote:

Sure. Right. A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch

What rights?

Roe v. Wade states that abortions are permissible for any reason, up until
the point a fetus becomes viable, which means potentially able to live
outside a mother's womb. Viability typically takes place somewhere between
24 and 28 weeks. Abortion is also available after viability when necessary
to protect a woman's health.

That's a legal opinion. It's not a personal opinion based on moral or
religious beliefs.
In this country, one is entitled to them as well.

I have no problem with a legally defined standard of pro-choice.
I *do* have a problem with those who like to pass judgment on the choices
made, trying to affect future decisions of others, or attempting to
undermine a person's credibility/morality to the furtherment of *their*
beliefs or political agendas.

Which, BTW, is exactly what you do.

In my case, I happen to believe that life begins at conception. It's not a
religious based opinion. It's a personal opinion, based on the fact that
life itself begets life. But, I don't push that on others unless they
happen to ask, or the subject comes up in a general discussion.

Eisboch

This is not a test

"hk" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:

That's not an indication of intelligence. It's a confirmation of
arrogance.

Eisboch

Do you get it now?

Did I make it simple enough?

:}

You are good. But, you're not *that* good. To some of us your
transparency is obvious.

But, that's ok. It takes all kinds in the world to make it interesting.

Eisboch

This is not a test

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
That's not an indication of intelligence. It's a confirmation of
arrogance.

Eisboch

Do you get it now?

Did I make it simple enough?

:}

You are good. But, you're not *that* good. To some of us your
transparency is obvious.

But, that's ok. It takes all kinds in the world to make it interesting.

Eisboch

Ohh, I'm a pretty damn good writer, but I don't waste effort here.
There's no point to it, and no money, either. :)

This is not a test

On Sep 1, 9:05*am, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
That's not an indication of intelligence. * It's a confirmation of
arrogance.

Eisboch

Do you get it now?

Did I make it simple enough?

:}

You are good. *But, you're not *that* good. * To some of us your
transparency is obvious.

But, that's ok. *It takes all kinds in the world to make it interesting.

Eisboch

Ohh, I'm a pretty damn good writer, but I don't waste effort here.
There's no point to it, and no money, either. *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pfffttt.....

This is not a test

On Sep 1, 9:59*am, jim wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:05 am, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
om...
Eisboch wrote:
That's not an indication of intelligence. * It's a confirmation of
arrogance.
Eisboch
Do you get it now?
Did I make it simple enough?
:}
You are good. *But, you're not *that* good. * To some of us your
transparency is obvious.
But, that's ok. *It takes all kinds in the world to make it interesting.
Eisboch
Ohh, I'm a pretty damn good writer, but I don't waste effort here.
There's no point to it, and no money, either. *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pfffttt.....

Harry is pretty much pinned to the mat and doesn't call on his "pretty
damn good writing skills" to wriggle himself free. I find that odd.
What's the point of Eisboch, Shortwave, Reggie, and the other well
spoken folks here, engaging Harry, when he can't or won't defend his
position?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He spent his life writing harrytales for a bunch of uneducated thugs
who shoved it down the working mans throat while picking his pocket..
He didn't need writing skills for that. All wafa has is Google,
spellchecker, and a lack of basic human decency... He is not, and
never was a writer. Remember last month he was going to be writing
commercials and said he wouldn't be around much? Pfffftttt.. his best
work is right here..

This is not a test

hk wrote:
:
:Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively seeking
:judicial or legislative solutions,
:

And Roe v Wade is certainly nothing like that...

You know, you're as big an ass as the people you attack.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

This is not a test

Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:
:
:Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively seeking
:judicial or legislative solutions,
:

And Roe v Wade is certainly nothing like that...

You know, you're as big an ass as the people you attack.

D'oh. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

This is not a test

On Sep 1, 6:33*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:02:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
om...

In my heart, I believe the anti-abortionists are that way because of
psychological, rather than religious reasons, anyway. It is a
patriarchal belief, even though some women share in it. It is a method
to control women.

Sure. *Right. *A method to control women......

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child, does
it?

Eisboch

Ahh...the Fetus Rights Movement, a division of the Fundamentalist Borg
Church, no doubt.

You are truly unbelievable. * On one hand you are for freedom of expression,
thought and to a degree, deed.
But on the other, all above is subject to your approval and beliefs. * Those
that don't subscribe are lacking in intelligence,
rightwing religious nut cases, schitt heads or dumbfochs.

Do you have any idea of how narrow minded you are?

What Harry knows about anything can be written on the tip of a stick
pin using a railroad spike as a chisel and a twelve pound sledge
hammer as a striker.

In 72 point Gothic script.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, true! Now you'll get insults and childish name calling from him.
That's how he works, when he's caught in a lie or is wrong, he'll come
back with name calling like a third grader.

This is not a test

hk wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:
:
:Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively
seeking :judicial or legislative solutions, :

And Roe v Wade is certainly nothing like that...

You know, you're as big an ass as the people you attack.

D'oh. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

Roe vs. Wade is a judicial interpretation. If Congress ever grew a pair
and enacted legislation Roe vs. Wade would disappear with the stroke of
a pen.

This is not a test

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:43:46 -0400, hk wrote:

I haven't worked for thugs for years, and they weren't uneducated.

Now *that* is funny.

This is not a test

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 08:51:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with those who like to pass judgment on the choices
made, trying to affect future decisions of others, or attempting to
undermine a person's credibility/morality to the furtherment of *their*
beliefs or political agendas.

Well said.

This is not a test

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:59:35 -0400, hk wrote:

* BTW, there is a very interesting and juicy rumor floating about
regarding Ms. Palin and that pregnancy. It's too salacious for even me
to repeat it here or discuss it before the story breaks.

It's already broken, and it shouldn't have. Even if true, it's the
family's business, no one else's.

However, there are some tenuous ties to the Alaskan Independence Party
that she should clarify. I'm not sure I'd want a secessionist as
President.

This is not a test

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:28:32 -0400, hk wrote:

Well, I wasn't going to be the one to spill the alleged details. If it
is true, it is an immediate disqualifier for the woman, not because of
the act, but because of the basic dishonesty it exhibits.

BS, there are times a lie is justified. This is one of them. Again,
it's their business.

This is not a test

On Sep 1, 11:10*am, BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:
:
:Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively
seeking :judicial or legislative solutions, :

And Roe v Wade is certainly nothing like that...

You know, you're as big an ass as the people you attack.

D'oh. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

Roe vs. Wade is a judicial interpretation. If Congress ever grew a pair
and enacted legislation Roe vs. Wade would disappear with the stroke of
a pen.

Looks like a law to me, do you have a citation that says otherwise?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=410&page=113

U.S. Supreme Court
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113

ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF
TEXAS
No. 70-18.

Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the
constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe
procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the
purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford),
who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was
permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the
wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged
injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure,
pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's
health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions,
held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing
to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that
declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court
declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly
infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants
directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and
appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory
relief to Roe and Hallford. Held:

1. While 28 U.S.C. 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this
Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is
not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal
from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both
injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp.
123-129.

(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination
of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving
pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an
exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy [410
U.S. 113, 114] must exist at review stages and not simply when the
action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.

(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred
in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally
protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith
state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S.
66 . Pp. 125-127.

(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any
one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an
actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that
except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's
behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other
interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy,
including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though
the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in
protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of
human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling"
point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first
trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to
the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp.
163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the
first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of
the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in
ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in
promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it
chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where
necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of
the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a
physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any
abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since
the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's
ruling [410 U.S. 113, 115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes
are unconstitutional. P. 166.

314 F. Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.
J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined.
BURGER, C. J., post, p. 207, DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 209, and STEWART,
J., post, p. 167, filed concurring opinions. WHITE, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 221.
REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 171.

Sarah Weddington reargued the cause for appellants. With her on the
briefs were Roy Lucas, Fred Bruner, Roy L. Merrill, Jr., and Norman
Dorsen.

Robert C. Flowers, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the
cause for appellee on the reargument. Jay Floyd, Assistant Attorney
General, argued the cause for appellee on the original argument. With
them on the brief were Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General, Nola
White, First Assistant Attorney General, Alfred Walker, Executive
Assistant Attorney General, Henry Wade, and John B. Tolle. * [410
U.S. 113, 116]

[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Gary K. Nelson,
Attorney General of Arizona, Robert K. Killian, Attorney General of
Connecticut, Ed W. Hancock, Attorney General of Kentucky, Clarence A.
H. Meyer, Attorney General of Nebraska, and Vernon B. Romney, Attorney
General of Utah; by Joseph P. Witherspoon, Jr., for the Association of
Texas Diocesan Attorneys; by Charles E. Rice for Americans United for
Life; by Eugene J. McMahon for Women for the Unborn et al.; by Carol
Ryan for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et
al.; by Dennis J. Horan, Jerome A. Frazel, Jr., Thomas M. Crisham, and
Dolores V. Horan for Certain Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; by Harriet F. Pilpel,
Nancy F. Wechsler, and Frederic S. Nathan for Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc., et al.; by Alan F. Charles for the
National Legal Program on Health Problems of the Poor et al.; by
Marttie L. Thompson for State Communities Aid Assn.; by [410 U.S. 113,
116] Alfred L. Scanlan, Martin J. Flynn, and Robert M. Byrn for the
National Right to Life Committee; by Helen L. Buttenwieser for the
American Ethical Union et al.; by Norma G. Zarky for the American
Association of University Women et al.; by Nancy Stearns for New Women
Lawyers et al.; by the California Committee to Legalize Abortion et
al.; and by Robert E. Dunne for Robert L. Sassone.

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Texas federal appeal and its Georgia companion, Doe v. Bolton,
post, p. 179, present constitutional challenges to state criminal
abortion legislation. The Texas statutes under attack here are typical
of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a
century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast and are
a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects
the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical
knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue.

We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional
nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views,
even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute
convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's
experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's
religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their
values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe,
are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and
conclusions about abortion.

In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial
overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional
measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to
do this, and, because we do, we [410 U.S. 113, 117] have inquired
into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and
medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's
attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We bear in
mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated
dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):

"[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally
differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions
natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude
our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them
conflict with the Constitution of the United States."

I

The Texas statutes that concern us here are Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196
of the State's Penal Code. 1 These make it a crime to "procure an
abortion," as therein [410 U.S. 113, 118] defined, or to attempt
one, except with respect to "an abortion procured or attempted by
medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."
Similar statutes are in existence in a majority of the States. 2
[410 U.S. 113, 119]

Texas first enacted a criminal abortion statute in 1854. Texas Laws
1854, c. 49, 1, set forth in 3 H. Gammel, Laws of Texas 1502 (1898).
This was soon modified into language that has remained substantially
unchanged to the present time. See Texas Penal Code of 1857, c. 7,
Arts. 531-536; G. Paschal, Laws of Texas, Arts. 2192-2197 (1866);
Texas Rev. Stat., c. 8, Arts. 536-541 (1879); Texas Rev. Crim. Stat.,
Arts. 1071-1076 (1911). The final article in each of these
compilations provided the same exception, as does the present Article
1196, for an abortion by "medical advice for the purpose of saving the
life of the mother." 3 [410 U.S. 113, 120]

II

Jane Roe, 4 a single woman who was residing in Dallas County, Texas,
instituted this federal action in March 1970 against the District
Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the
Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face,
and an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the
statutes.

Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to
terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent,
licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was
unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not
appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that
she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to
secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the
Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged
her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe
purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly
situated.

James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted
leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that
he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion
statutes and [410 U.S. 113, 121] that two such prosecutions were
pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to
him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a
physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside
the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a
consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his
patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his
own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

John and Mary Doe, 5 a married couple, filed a companion complaint to
that of Roe. They also named the District Attorney as defendant,
claimed like constitutional deprivations, and sought declaratory and
injunctive relief. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple;
that Mrs. Doe was suffering from a "neural-chemical" disorder; that
her physician had "advised her to avoid pregnancy until such time as
her condition has materially improved" (although a pregnancy at the
present time would not present "a serious risk" to her life); that,
pursuant to medical advice, she had discontinued use of birth control
pills; and that if she should become pregnant, she would want to
terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent,
licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions. By an amendment to
their complaint, the Does purported to sue "on behalf of themselves
and all couples similarly situated."

The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly
convened three-judge district court. The suits thus presented the
situations of the pregnant single woman, the childless couple, with
the wife not pregnant, [410 U.S. 113, 122] and the licensed
practicing physician, all joining in the attack on the Texas criminal
abortion statutes. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made
for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and
members of her class, and Dr. Hallford, had standing to sue and
presented justiciable controversies, but that the Does had failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy and did not
have standing. It concluded that, with respect to the requests for a
declaratory judgment, abstention was not warranted. On the merits, the
District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and
married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the
Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas
criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were
both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad
infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights. The court then
held that abstention was warranted with respect to the requests for an
injunction. It therefore dismissed the Does' complaint, declared the
abortion statutes void, and dismissed the application for injunctive
relief. 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1225 (ND Tex. 1970).

The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1253, have appealed to this Court from that part of the
District Court's judgment denying the injunction. The defendant
District Attorney has purported to cross-appeal, pursuant to the same
statute, from the court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and
Hallford. Both sides also have taken protective appeals to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ordered the
appeals held in abeyance pending decision here. We postponed decision
on jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 402 U.S. 941 (1971).
[410 U.S. 113, 123]

III
more

This is not a test

Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Sep 1, 11:10 am, BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:
:
:Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively
seeking :judicial or legislative solutions, :
And Roe v Wade is certainly nothing like that...
You know, you're as big an ass as the people you attack.
D'oh. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
Roe vs. Wade is a judicial interpretation. If Congress ever grew a pair
and enacted legislation Roe vs. Wade would disappear with the stroke of
a pen.

Looks like a law to me, do you have a citation that says otherwise?

It is better to say it is "the law" not "a law" Many people confuse
statutes with law. Statutes, treaties, Judicial decisions and binding
regulations are all "the law"

In the case of the particular decision, it is a constitutional
interpretation so it cannot be overturned by a statute

Vince

This is not a test

Vincent wrote:
hk wrote:
Vincent wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:28:32 -0400, hk wrote:

Well, I wasn't going to be the one to spill the alleged details. If it
is true, it is an immediate disqualifier for the woman, not because of
the act, but because of the basic dishonesty it exhibits.

BS, there are times a lie is justified. This is one of them.
Again, it's their business.

Her daughter is pregnant right now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100710_pf.html

Vince

Birth control isn't available in Alaska?

not for the right wing evangelicals, they rely on abstinence education,
until they become grandparents

Vince

Well, I hope the girl is treated more kindly by the media than Jamie
Lynn Spears was. I also hope she was at least 16 when she had
intercourse, assuming 16 is the age of consent in Alaska.

Ah, yes...abstinence education, about as realistic as, say, creationism.

This is not a test

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
:
:Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively seeking
:judicial or legislative solutions,
:

And Roe v Wade is certainly nothing like that...

what does roe v wade force on anybody?
it stops the government from having control over women.

This is not a test

hk wrote:
Vincent wrote:
hk wrote:
Vincent wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:28:32 -0400, hk wrote:

Well, I wasn't going to be the one to spill the alleged details.
If it
is true, it is an immediate disqualifier for the woman, not
because of
the act, but because of the basic dishonesty it exhibits.

BS, there are times a lie is justified. This is one of them.
Again, it's their business.

Her daughter is pregnant right now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100710_pf.html

Vince

Birth control isn't available in Alaska?

not for the right wing evangelicals, they rely on abstinence
education, until they become grandparents

Vince

Well, I hope the girl is treated more kindly by the media than Jamie
Lynn Spears was. I also hope she was at least 16 when she had
intercourse, assuming 16 is the age of consent in Alaska.

Ah, yes...abstinence education, about as realistic as, say, creationism.

The girl deserves proper treatment and privacy

Remember this woman was picked to appeal to the evangelical family
values anti sex anti abortion crowd

the 2004 gop platform was clearly in the "keep em stupid " version of
sex education

"Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose
school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related
services for contraception and abortion."

The republicans make teen pregnancies a political issue

The failure by her mother to promptly disclose and the poor judgment
shown by McCain in thinking this could be kept secret are very and
reasonably troubling

Vince

This is not a test

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:59:35 -0400, hk wrote:

* BTW, there is a very interesting and juicy rumor floating about
regarding Ms. Palin and that pregnancy. It's too salacious for even me
to repeat it here or discuss it before the story breaks.

It's already broken, and it shouldn't have. Even if true, it's the
family's business, no one else's.

However, there are some tenuous ties to the Alaskan Independence Party
that she should clarify. I'm not sure I'd want a secessionist as
President.

yes it should have broken
it gets right to the heart of the truthfulness of gov palin.
like troopergate it shows she will lie and also abuse her position for
persinal reasons.

This is not a test

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
:
:Of course not. If I were "pushing" my beliefs, I'd be actively seeking
:judicial or legislative solutions,
:

And Roe v Wade is certainly nothing like that...

what does roe v wade force on anybody?
it stops the government from having control over women.

Right-wingers don't seem to understand the concept...or the
underpinnings of of Roe v. Wade.

By all that is holy to them Constitutionally and legally, they should be
supporters of Roe v. Wade.

This is not a test

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:28:32 -0400, hk wrote:

Well, I wasn't going to be the one to spill the alleged details. If it
is true, it is an immediate disqualifier for the woman, not because of
the act, but because of the basic dishonesty it exhibits.

BS, there are times a lie is justified. This is one of them. Again,
it's their business

no. its not justified. and by lying about it she turned a pvt matter into a
national story.
and if she had been honest about it , not only would it not be a story, it
would strengthen her pro-life, pro-family credentials.
now she is just a typical republican hypocrite

This is not a test

Vince wrote:
hk wrote:
Vincent wrote:
hk wrote:
Vincent wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:28:32 -0400, hk wrote:

Well, I wasn't going to be the one to spill the alleged details.
If it
is true, it is an immediate disqualifier for the woman, not
because of
the act, but because of the basic dishonesty it exhibits.

BS, there are times a lie is justified. This is one of them.
Again, it's their business.

Her daughter is pregnant right now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100710_pf.html

Vince

Birth control isn't available in Alaska?

not for the right wing evangelicals, they rely on abstinence
education, until they become grandparents

Vince

Well, I hope the girl is treated more kindly by the media than Jamie
Lynn Spears was. I also hope she was at least 16 when she had
intercourse, assuming 16 is the age of consent in Alaska.

Ah, yes...abstinence education, about as realistic as, say, creationism.

The girl deserves proper treatment and privacy

Remember this woman was picked to appeal to the evangelical family
values anti sex anti abortion crowd

the 2004 gop platform was clearly in the "keep em stupid " version of
sex education

"Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose
school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related
services for contraception and abortion."

The republicans make teen pregnancies a political issue

The failure by her mother to promptly disclose and the poor judgment
shown by McCain in thinking this could be kept secret are very and
reasonably troubling

Vince

"Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose
school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related
services for contraception and abortion."

Obviously, the Republicans favor teen pregnancies, because if they
didn't, they would favor school based clinics that provide referrals,
counseling and related services for contraception, if not for abortion.

I don't want to see the young lady interviewed or overly photographed
because of this, but I sure want to see her mama and papa questioned
about this, their child-rearing practices, and their ability to raise
the remainder of their children in the face of this failure.

And I entirely agree with your comment about McCain.
His failure to disclose is yet another lapse.

This is not a test

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

Nope, they did not. Did the Louisiana people handle it right? They
screwed up even worse than the Feds. Would Clinton have screwed it up.
Probably the same as Bush. Is N.O. worth rebuilding? Probably not as
they are trying to do.

typical bull**** eingnut speculation.
and the standard "blame clinton" when all else fails.
yeah nothing is ever the chimplers fault.