Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scrumpy who wrote (54155)	6/24/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't think it would be unconstitutional, but I never thought Roe v.Wade was grounded in the Constitution either. At this point, I think its too late. You've seen the hairy legged posts on this thread to the effect that "We won't go back." I sincerely think overturning the Roe decision, even though it was founded on a fraud on the Court, would start a civil war. JLA

To: Scrumpy who wrote (54155)	6/24/1999 1:49:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

There are long waiting lists of people waiting to adopt babies. Your proposed "solution" to a non problem is representative of the bulk of the Federal Government's activities. Would the government be in violation of one's civil liberty to legislate and enforce the mandatory adoption of potential aborts by self-proclaimed "pro-life" advocates.