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: MulhollandDrive who wrote (58914)	8/19/1999 5:38:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 67261

A woman's "right to choose" is currently considered unassailable in this country. It is? I don't think so and thats what is so scary. In 1989 I think the supreme court passed something saying states could pass restrictions on Roe v Wade and many have done that. There is a famous case out here involving a Berkeley student in Ohio that was in jail and the overwhelming evidence suggests the judge (pro-life, of course) deliberately delayed her hearing so that she was unable to have an abortion within the timeframe allowed in Ohio (3 mos or whatever it is). I hope she sues the state of Ohio for 50million and wins. I agree with what you say is the current condition, certainly out here, and its not perfect but I'm ok with it. Its certainly better than the situation for women on October 2, 1964 when I was born. My arguments revolve around IF a womans right to choose is removed, as in Ohio. If that comes to pass, then men's right to walk away with no consequences should be removed too, its only fair in my book. But if things stay as they are (in Ca, NOT Ohio) then I am not arguing in favor of imposing restrictions on males.