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.

Pastimes : Pro Choice Action Team -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (29)	2/6/2001 3:41:31 AM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 948

I, for one, am not comfortable with the idea of returning the issue of the legality of abortion to the states. I prefer it be handled on a national level. I'm a citizen of the United States first. Of my town, second. Then my country. My state might be next after county. A 500 dollar illegal abortion, IF someone knows the right doctor, isn't a good option. I have no doubt from the things that have been stated by officials of this state that abortion would be illegal here if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. I'm not willing to leave that decision in the hands of the states. This state can't even get its kids in decent schools, or keep its roads paved. I'd much rather they paid attention to pratical ways they can affect the lives of the people living here with the taxes we pay, than involve themselves in our private decisions through the passing of laws. It took the USSC to let blacks eat where they pleased here, and it took the USSC to give women the right to choose here. I'm fine with that. And want to work to keep it that way.

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (29)	2/6/2001 9:53:16 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 948

Actually, I don't think Roe v. Wade is constitutionally sound, and I think it's done more harm than good. If and when it's reversed, and I think that's inevitable, the battleground will shift to the state legislatures. The Religious Right knows that - and they're eating you guys' lunch already. The other battleground is going to be keeping RU 486 legal. Once RU 486 becomes widely available, I can't think of any legitimate reason to have a second trimester abortion unless the mother waited for the results of genetic testing or has had some kind of medical emergency. The vast majority of second trimester abortions are performed on women who couldn't scrape together the money for a first trimester abortion on time. Second trimester abortions are far more complex than first trimester abortions, and the complication rates are much higher. No one should have one just for purposes of contraception. It's stupid. They're dangerous. Dubya is probably going to appoint three justices during the next four years - Rehnquist and O'Connor both have expressed the desire to retire, and Stevens is 80. And there's really no way of knowing how a Supreme Court appointee will vote once he or she is on the bench.