Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Abortion and the Constitution
Message-ID: <887@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 12:59:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.887
Posted: Thu Aug 22 12:59:54 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 18:01:29 EDT
References: <597@mit-vax.UUCP> <931@bunker.UUCP> <688@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 25

MIKE HUYBENSZ writes:

> 		  The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution and
> Ammendments) provides no support for or reason to oppose choice of abortion.

At last we have someone on the net who knows what legal force the
Declaration of Independence has (i.e., none), and who knows what the
Constitution says about the right to abort (i.e., nothing).  Mr.
Huybensz, your statement here agrees with the DISSENT in Roe v. Wade,
not the majority opinion.  The dissent argued that since the Constitution
is silent on the subject of abortion, the decision whether to outlaw
or restrict abortions is up to the States (Tenth Amendment, remember?).

If Mr. Huybensz is a pro-choicer, he's the first pro-choicer I've read
who agrees with the dissent in Roe v. Wade.  If we could have two more
such "pro-choicers" on the U. S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade could be
overturned, and the number of fetuses destroyed in this country could
be greatly reduced.

The rest of you:  READ the cases.  READ the statutes that have been
upheld, and the statutes that have been thrown out.  How can anyone
argue what the law should be when he has only a hazy idea of what the
law is now?

					-- Matt Rosenblatt