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: Neocon who wrote (31479)	2/1/1999 4:04:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

No, I'm not accusing you of saying anything untrue, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. On the PBA issue, I feel it's dishonest to work for a law banning a particular medical procedure, which has (arguable) advantages over alternative procedures that do the same thing, as a means of outlawing late term abortions. If the right-to-life advocates want to outlaw late term abortions, they should work for a law doing so in explicit terms and see if the Supreme Court will accept it. I see that as a more honest approach than the way the PBA bill has been presented. OK? The existing Roe V. Wade limits seem to have been fairly effective, 3rd trimester abortions are very rare. Why, exactly, do you think testing a change of those limits legally would be worse than the current PBA bill? Or any less likely to be upheld in the Supreme Court? As an aside, I will note again that PBA was a big stick in the hand of Mark Neumann in his campaign against the Republican's favorite Democrat of the moment, Russ Feingold.