Replies

That is one of the other reasons we had to do Roe v. Wade, because is it fair that we have that kind of distinction made on the basis of class or income instead of the basis of law?

You know, it seems to me that lots of rich people get away with a lot of crimes that poor people get caught for. Like drugs, for instance.

Does that mean Sen. Clinton is in favor of legalizing them?

Anyway, the argument is specious. When abortion was illegal, people of means who got abortions in America were just as guilty of breaking the law as anyone eles. That they could afford more competent lawbreaking doctors does not change that.

As for the idea that we had to change our laws because some poeple could fly to Sweden for abortions, if that is a basis for legislating, that our sovereginity ends at the borders, then we might as well have no laws whatsoever.

You're right: There is simply no logic to Hillary's statement that the rich can get abortions ( implying that it was at the time it was illegal), then the poor should be able to get them, too.

Somehow, I'm getting the feeling that Hiilary knows someone in particular, of means, who had an abortion prior to Roe vs Wade. It may have been a classmate at Wellsley or Yale but I truly believe she has a "secret". Something may be in her thesis which has been sealed.