KP:
>yes, this is the line of all the boys now. I spend hours every week
>keeping up with abortion law and politics -- it is much more
>complicated than whether or not Roe v Wade is overturned. For example,
>the reason attacks on abortion clinics ,which he identifies as the major
>threat, have gone down is because of Clinton -- enforcing existing laws
>that Reagan and Bush admins had ignored, passing the Freedom of Access
>to Clinic Entrances bill--which was upheld by the Supremes. Do you think
>that Bush, who proclaimed "Jesus Day" in Texas, is going to hold the
>line against clinic harrassment? regardless of the fate of roe, I think
>Bush will nominate justices who will permit all sorts of infringements
>on abortion rights. We could end up with no roe, or we could end up with
>a roe that has been drained of content by other decisions -- like
>Partial birth coming back in revised form (this is already happening in
>Ohio). I mean Doug, be realistic -- don't you think bush is going to
>repay the christians somehow for their staying in the fold?
>Michael, alex and the pro-life christopher really haven't looked into
>this issue carefully -- they just want to make propaganda points. I
>don't believe for a minute that Michael ever voted Dem solely on
>abortion, as he claims -- in fact, he always took the labor line. Just a
>few years ago he was urging progressives to join the democratic party
>and take over the local clubhouses.
others:
> "The terrorists have literally gotten away with
> murder -- with a pro-choice attorney general sitting in Washington, D.C.,
> doing damn little about it." Michael Moore
> Because I live in Wichita, I know Michael is wrong on this one. When FACE
> became law, a lot changed here. Also, Reno was responsible for getting U. S.
> Marshals here protecting doctors and clinics. It really burned the antis to
> see those marshals standing at the clinic entrance and escorting doctors,
> staff, and patients. Michael probably wouldn't know this if he's never been
> in close proximity of a clinic.
----
> I think this whole concept of ONLY
> focusing on Roe when looking at reproductive rights and the presidency
> is ludicrous. Katha, can you take a look at ALL the potential
> appointments which occur with a new president? I firmly believe that
> there will be some places in the country where it will become impossible
> to provide abortion care because it will be too dangerous and we will no
> longer have Justice Dept resources. Shreveport and Wichita will be two
>
> of those places. And this whole aggressive anti choice movement was
> built, funded and ENCOURAGED under Reagan/Bush--and perhaps because of
> our current administrations stand on FACE (and the subsequent shutting
> down of Operation Rescue sit in activity) anti activity has decreased
> all the while becoming far more dangerous. But I certainly don't think
> that Clinton is the reason for the escalation in violence--isn't it felt
> that when folks feel they are losing the battle, they sometimes become
> more desperate and dangerous? And I do think that Clinton's appointment
> of Janet Reno (and other activities) have set off some of this anti
> government militia types...
>
> The reason you folks on WLO have not heard from me lately is that I have
> been busy with this God Said militia from east Texas. They have been
> with us for the past three Saturdays. I do not know what we would have
> done without the assistance of the Justice Department and particularly
> the marshals and the FBI.
>
> And the violence issue is ONLY one issue and only one department--that
> we have looked at an discussed here. What about all the other
> appointments?? We know the FDA and politics is currently dramatically
> effecting women's access to mifepristone in the USA--and we know that
> this is a result of our republican Congress. So what would happen to
> all of our other federal agencies which over see our health and welfare
> in this fair nation? Will we have Pat Robertson's friends running our
> agencies? What will the face of America look like if this occurs?