Mon Jun 22 15:32:35 CDT 1998
Sorry for more clutter...
Cancel the alert,
I contacted Jeremy H.
>From Mon Jun 22 19:50:53 1998
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 58782 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:51:02
Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [184.108.40.206]) by
list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id TAA68890 for
<EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:51:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MoxieK at aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8UEJa11435
for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:50:53 -0400 (EDT)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 52
Message-ID: <ada0d1cf.358eedde at aol.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:50:53 EDT
Reply-To: MoxieK at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kim Fleming <MoxieK at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Fw: now-action-list Urgent: Bill Threatens Safety of
In a message dated 98-06-22 03:39:16 EDT, brdst11+ at PITT.EDU writes:
<< I'd say so..That's why I can't understand how this would fit in the
context of a civil rights issue...I doubt that Roe v Wade means that
hospitals/doctors are forced to do abortions...I think both have the
freedom not to engage in those, if they choose not to... >>
Even with such as the case, I can still see very well how it would fit into
the civil rights issue.... if not more so than when it was only discrimination
against a woman. While we can be fairly certain that Roe v Wade did not
create a situation in which doctors are forced to provide this... has it
created such a potential situation?
Would a federal ruling mandating, not that health care providers &
institutions provide abortions, but that they at least provide some sort of
"counseling" (for lack of a better term) and sound medical referals to a
proffesional who is willing to provide the abortion still be discrimination
against a docor?
Would requiring such still be inhibiting a Doctor's freedom of choice?
Would this be the kind of law that serves not to protect the individual's
freedom, but to protect the individual FROM their freedom? Or would it be
protecting the freedom and civil rights of each individual by: first requiring
that a doctor does their utmost to uphold their oath, provide quality care and
assistance, while allowing them to not be forced into performing (elective)
surgery that may be against their religous and/ or political beliefs; and
second by still allowing the woman freedom of choice, and knowledgable access
to quality health care?
More information about the Mailman