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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (87628)	11/21/2004 10:11:30 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 793776

You're right and NOW is wrong. Make'em doesn't work with soldiers or doctors.

To: Ilaine who wrote (87628)	11/21/2004 11:37:09 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793776

The exact phraseology is this "makes women's bodies the property of right-wing legislators . . . . " NOW is a classic example of the "we are going to FORCE everybody to do it our way," outlook of the Dems when they held the strings in Congress. Opening it up is right, but very unpleasant for them to swallow.

To: Ilaine who wrote (87628)	11/22/2004 1:00:00 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793776

CB, re the Refusal Clause: Is there anything that would prevent a woman from requesting and receiving an abortion if that is what she wishes to do? Doesn't this Refusal Clause just stop the providing service from receiving money from an insurance company or from the government for that service? Page 3 of the pdf article says more about the proposal than anything else I could find....Googling "refusal clause" brings up many places that all are up in arms about this, but NONE of them actually have the exact words of this "refusal clause"..... nwlc.org nwlc.org