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