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 -- doomed & wagging, Japan collapses, Y2K bug, etc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (342)	9/17/1998 8:39:00 PM
From: SOROS	Respond to of 1151

Senators make case for overriding Clinton's abortion veto WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans tried to make the case Thursday for overriding President Clinton's veto of a late-term abortion ban, describing the procedure as an unnecessary ''rogue'' operation that endangers women's lives and health. ''It's a dangerous procedure being performed every day on the fringe, outside of mainstream medicine,'' charged Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the only medical doctor serving in the chamber. The Senate was scheduled to vote Friday on the override. Senators passed the bill, 64-36, in May 1997, but was three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for overrides when all 100 senators are present and voting. The House voted, 296-132, in July to reject Clinton's veto. Supporters were cautious, but noted that support for the bill has grown with each Senate tally, starting with 54 votes in December 1995, rising to 58 in September 1996 and ending with 64 last year. ''I hope that some senators will have had a change of heart since then,'' said Sen. Christopher ''Kit'' Bond, R-Mo. ''This is a horrible procedure.'' Abortion rights advocates said they were confident the veto would stand. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., would outlaw the procedure, called ''partial-birth'' abortion by its critics, except when needed to save the woman's life. Violators face imprisonment, fines and lawsuits by the father and the fetus' maternal grandparents. The procedure involves the partial, feet-first delivery of a fetus and the draining of its skull contents. Abortion rights advocates, including Clinton, maintain that the bill is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for when a woman's health is jeopardized by continuing a pregnancy - a provision they say is required by the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. ''This legislation's failure to make any exception to preserve a woman's health stands as a stark reminder that anti-choice sponsors of (the bill) would sacrifice the well-being of this nation's women to accomplish their political agenda,'' the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement. ''If enacted, this bill will threaten the health of women across the country,'' added Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. --- The bill is H.R. 1122.

To: SOROS who wrote (342)	9/17/1998 8:44:00 PM
From: SOROS	Respond to of 1151

SCORE ANOTHER ONE FOR THE COMMUNISTS (here or abroad?) National Center for Policy Analysis GAO FAULTS COMPUTER EXPORT STUDY When the Clinton administration relaxed export controls on U.S. high-performance computers in 1996, it relied on a Stanford University study which concluded that such computers were already easily available around the world. The study did not check out how countries like China might use the computers for military purposes. But in a report to Congress, the General Accounting Office says such sophisticated computers are not readily available abroad and the Stanford study failed to assess how they might be used by an enemy. o Moreover, according to the GAO, loosening controls was not necessary to help American computer makers compete abroad -- as the Clinton administration contended -- because American manufacturers already dominated the overseas market. o The GAO's auditors said the Stanford study "lacked empirical evidence or analysis regarding its conclusion" that U.S. computer technology was uncontrollable worldwide and efforts to control it would harm the industry. o GAO officials say the authors of the Stanford study told them they did not analyze the national security threat because the federal government did not have the right information on which to base a study. Within a year after the export rules were loosened, military installations in Russia and China obtained a few powerful new American computers -- prompting criminal investigations and a retightening of export controls by Congress. William A. Reinsch, undersecretary of commerce, argued that the GAO was wrong to rank national security as the top priority in looking at the issue. Source: Jeff Gerth, "U.S. Agency Faults Study on Export of Computers," New York Times, September 17, 1998.