XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: DumpBushInNovember@usa.com   
      
   In article <7943568.0406230409.4f4f2838@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   Winn  wrote:   
      
   > "David W. Barnes"  wrote in message   
   > news:<220620042140401999%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>...   
   > > In article <7943568.0406222039.771c2baa@posting.google.com>, Robert B.   
   > > Winn  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > > >>>A court opinion is not a law.   
   > > > > >>   
   > > > > >>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   
   > > > >   
   > > > > The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the constitution, so their   
   > > > > opinion DOES change that. And what laws do the states have to prevent   
   > > > > abortion?   
   > > >   
   > > > The law I was  born under that prevented abortion was California Penal   
   > > > Code sections 274, 275, 276.  That law is still in effect because the   
   > > > United States Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction in   
   > > > capital cases.  They cannot sentence people to death.  It has to be   
   > > > done by a lower court.   
   > >   
   > > You seem to be forgetting they do have jurisdiction over constitutional   
   > > issues.   
   >   
   > Homicides of children is not a constitutional issue.   
      
   A woman's privacy is.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)