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: greenspirit who wrote (16135)	11/27/1998 5:56:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 67261

<<some people would go to any length to support BC>> Hey ,Micheal BC said he would sign it if there was wording to the effect of exemptions for the health of the woman. << If the doctor thought the womans' health was seriously at stake he could easily say it's potentially life threatening >> What, are we going to quibble on the definition of health? You know very well that not all health problems are life threatening, come on.Since this would be law I don't think doctors would be to quick to flat out lie about what is life threatening and what isn't. << If we put down physical health as a requirement some would say what about mental health>> Look you don't expect to please everybody. I can only speak for my self. That would satisfy me. I still don't understand what your objection to this "physical health" exemption is. If there isn't any risk why not just humor me? Whacha got to lose? pez