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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (4547)	9/10/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 13994

The proposed clause would have provide a loop hole so large as to make the whole bill worthless. This would have made it a perfect bill in Bill's mind; all symbolism, no substance.

To: Machaon who wrote (4547)	9/10/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: lorrie coey	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Pro-Choice Republicans...will protect the party from going over the edge. Women will never give up their reproductive control. This is a natural law. ; )

To: Machaon who wrote (4547)	9/10/1998 3:49:00 PM
From: Larry Dreher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>><< He said the PBA is NEVER needed to save a mother's life. >> Even if this spin is true, then the Republican Party is still mean spirited by refusing to put a clause in the bill to protect the life and health of the mother. << Boy, how easily you liberals are mislead by the spin and what the media wants you to believe. The fact is that the bill did allow the procedure to protect the life of the mother. The reason that the health of the mother was excluded from the language of the bill was that the courts have broadly interpreted that phrase to mean just about anything. If the health exception was included, it would have left a huge loophole that would have allowed the procedure to be performed in just about any circumstance.