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: Machaon who wrote (8036)	10/8/1998 1:44:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

All the Republicans have to do is to endorse a woman's right to chose, and young women would not have to "hate" Republicans (your words). Hmmm no, not exactly. The family values platform they embraced in the early 90s - thus reducing the republicans to puppets for the RR - was what really did them in with young women (in the liberal states anyway). I know you didnt quite say this btw Im sort of responding to you and Mr.K. What a day.... MH

To: Machaon who wrote (8036)	10/8/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<< All Clinton asked for was the exclusion for a woman's life or health>> The key phrase there is "for the woman's health". That has been used to include mental health, and even just inconvenience in past abortion debates in various states. Remember, we are talking about a fetus that would be viable outside the womb, probably a person by anyone's definition. Why would should it be acceptable (even to the mother!) to perform that type of surgery for mental health or other similar reasons? There must be a way to word the bill so that the mother's life is grounds for the exclusion, without including the overly broad "health" umbrella. There would also need to be some sort of determination made on a case by case basis regarding potential serious health threats to the mother that had no other means of abatement.