XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: prochoice@here.now   
      
   On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:45:55 GMT, "Light Templar"   
    in alt.abortion with message-id   
    wrote:   
      
   >While Attila was contemplating his or her navel in   
   >news:iejsc0t27hojhnlhaukkkp2llibo9s0lko@4ax.com,   
   > he or she gave us all a good laugh with the   
   >following...   
   >   
   >> On 14 Jun 2004 16:52:27 -0700, rbwinn47@mybluelight.com (Robert B.   
   >> Winn) in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >> <7943568.0406141552.705c13c3@posting.google.com> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A woman walks into planned parenthood today and proceeds with an   
   >>>> abortion. Your contention is that abortion is not legal. Please   
   >>>> explain your position that she is now in violation of the law.   
   >>>   
   >>> All states had laws in effect to prohibit what you describe.  A   
   >>> Supreme Court opinion does not change that.   
   >>> Robert B. Winn   
   >>   
   >> Actually it does since state law is secondary to federal law and the   
   >> Constitution.   
   >   
   >The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the basic framework of   
   >all laws.  A state agrees to this by the act of ratifying the U.S.   
   >Constitution upon admission into the union.  This is basic civics.   
      
   Which is beyond the comprehension of the Winnut and does not fit into   
   the requirements of Nutland anyway.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)