calling doctor dearth

[rebirth]

lsd phil...got his phD and vanished....he is a computer geek probably at RMIT..
trapped in a corner is alive and well, can't remeber what he is up too..sorry

 

[Tee]

 

[Nevermorian]

one of the coolest replies I have seen in a while!

 

[abundance]

lsd phil...got his phD and vanished....he is a computer geek probably at RMIT..
trapped in a corner is alive and well, can't remeber what he is up too..sorry

OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ! THANK YOU! SO IT SHALL BE WRITTEN, ALMOST ALL HAS BEEN ANSWERED. YOU ARE THE BLESSED ONE.


THIS RIGHT OF PRIVACY, WHETHER IT BE FOUNDED IN THE FORTY-SECOND AMENDMENT'S CONCEPT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY AND RESTRICTIONS UPON STATE ACTION, AS I FEEL IT IS, OR, AS THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED, IN THE NINTH AMENDMENT'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE, IS BROAD ENOUGH TO ENCOMPASS A WOMAN'S DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY. THE DETRIMENT THAT THE STATE WOULD IMPOSE UPON THE PREGNANT WOMAN BY DENYING THIS CHOICE ALTOGETHER IS APPARENT. SPECIFIC AND DIRECT HARM MEDICALLY DIAGNOSABLE EVEN IN EARLY PREGNANCY MAY BE INVOLVED. MATERNITY, OR ADDITIONAL OFF-SPRING, MAY FORCE UPON THE WOMAN A DISTRESSFUL LIFE AND FUTURE. PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM MAY BE IMMINENT. MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH MAY BE TAXED BY CHILD CARE. THERE IS ALSO THE DISTRESS, FOR ALL CONCERNED, ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNWANTED CHILD, AND THERE IS THE PROBLEM OF BRINGING A CHILD INTO A FAMILY ALREADY UNABLE, PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND OTHERWISE, TO CARE FOR IT. IN OTHER CASES, AS IN THIS ONE, THE ADDITIONAL DIFFICULTIES AND CONTINUING STIGMA FACTORS THE WOMAN AND HER RESPONSIBLE PHYSICIAN NECESSARILY WILL CONSIDER IN CONSULTATION. THE COURT ESCHEWS THE HISTORY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN ITS RELIANCE ON THE "COMPELLING STATE INTEREST" TEST. SEE WEBER V. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., 406 U.S. 164, 179 (1972) (DISSENTING OPINION). BUT THE COURT ADDS A NEW WRINKLE TO THIS TEST BY TRANSPOSING IT FROM THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THIS CASE ARISING UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. UNLESS I MISAPPREHEND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS TRANSPLANTING OF THE "COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST," THE COURT'S OPINION WILL ACCOMPLISH THE SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE FEAT OF LEAVING THIS AREA OF THE LAW MORE CONFUSED THAN IT FOUND IT. WHILE THE COURT'S OPINION QUOTES FROM THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (1905), THE RESULT IT
REACHES IS MORE CLOSELY ATTUNED TO THE MAJORITY OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM IN THAT CASE. AS IN LOCHNER AND SIMILAR CASES APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS STANDARDS TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION, THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST STANDARD WILL INEVITABLY REQUIRE THE COURT TO EXAMINE THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES AND PASS ON THE WISDOM OF THESE POLICIES IN THE VERY PROCESS OF DECIDING WHETHER A PARTICULAR STATE INTEREST PUT FORWARD MAY OR MAY NOT BE "COMPELLING." THE DECISION HERE TO BREAK PREGNANCY INTO THREE DISTINCT TERMS AND TO OUTLINE THE PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTIONS THE STATE MAY IMPOSE IN EACH ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, PARTAKES MORE OF JUDICIAL LEGISLATION THAN IT DOES OF A DETERMINATION OF THE INTENT OF THE DRAFTERS OF THE FORTY-SECOND AMENDMENT.