Uncategorized

>A clear (but erroneous) argument against abortion bans

>The Hastings Center has a new blog which contains a piece by Hilde Lindemann which rightly calls last week’s South Dakota legislation banning most abortions a “direct attack on Roe v. Wade.” The author says that this law ignores the undue gender inequality of burden on the mother and enforces “specific performance” on the pregnant woman.

I’m not a lawyer, just a family doctor. However, doesn’t the use of this doctrine of law involve penalties or the positive forcing of an intentional act that has been promised but is not being done? The prohibition *against the initiation* of an intentional act by a third party by abortion doesn’t seem to quite fit.

About bnuckols

Conservative Christian Family Doctor, promoting conservative news and views. (Hot Air under the right wing!)

Discussion

One thought on “>A clear (but erroneous) argument against abortion bans

  1. >This Lindemann is a horrific person. And there are many who think like her. But that is part of democracy: the stupid and hateful cry louder and usually have access to mass media to spread their poison.I agree with j2 (btw very good comment!) except I do not tolerate her like.

    Posted by Anonymous | October 29, 2006, 2:23 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

If the post is missing: take the “www.” out of the url

@bnuckols Twitter

Categories

Archives

SiteMeter

%d bloggers like this: