Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cold Heat

Dear Cold Heat,

"It is the health clause that needs court limitations, and I believe that can be done without violating Roe."

You may believe that, but the Supreme Court doesn't.

Actually, the health thingy is technically a part of Doe v. Bolton. But these are companion cases, issued on the same day, one to establish the principle, the other to provide significant guidance as to how to interpret the principle.

Doe v. Bolton holds that "health" means just about anything, including relieving anxiety from missing the prom.

And the Supreme Court has held to this.

If you wanna tighten up the "health" clause, you're going to have to overturn the entire contraption of Roe and Doe.

Sorry.


sitetest


1,481 posted on 11/14/2004 1:07:37 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1479 | View Replies ]


To: sitetest
And the Supreme Court has held to this.

The old court did.

We don't know what the new one will look like, and that is basically what we are discussing here and now.

1,484 posted on 11/14/2004 1:11:39 PM PST by Cold Heat (There is more to do! "Mr. Kerry, about that Navy discharge?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1481 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson