| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Angela Bassett-Hound eat it all @ balls N all.com" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2004 06:56:10 PM |
| Object: |
Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade |
Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade
by Scott Ott
(2004-10-06) -- Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals inadvertently
overturned the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling today
when it denied Rush Limbaugh's petition to protect his right of privacy
regarding medical records.
A spokesman for the court said that by ruling Mr. Limbaugh had no right to
privacy regarding medical records, it denied the central tenet of the 1972
Roe V. Wade ruling in which the Supreme Court found that the right to
privacy protected a woman's right to an abortion, at least for several
months.
"On behalf of the 4th District Court of Appeals," the unnamed spokesman
said, "Oops."
"The court wasn't trying to ban abortion," he added. "We just wanted to
protect the right of the state to seize medical documents that are unrelated
to a future, potentially-criminal, case in which the future alleged
defendant might conceivably be charged."
Mr. Limbaugh, a radio talkshow host and unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney
presidential campaign, told a reporter "If you want a reaction quote from
me, you'll have to get a search warrant. But if you get the warrant, you can
have every word I've ever spoken."
.
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hearn" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade |
07 Oct 2004 08:52:10 PM |
|
|
In article <SHk9d.299005$%n4.99994@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Angela Bassett-Hound" <eat it all @ balls N all.com> wrote:
Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade
by Scott Ott
(2004-10-06) -- Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals inadvertently
overturned the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling today
when it denied Rush Limbaugh's petition to protect his right of privacy
regarding medical records.
You need to learn civics better. No lower court can overturn a ruling by
the Supreme Court, not even inadvertently.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade |
07 Oct 2004 11:03:12 PM |
|
|
On 2004-10-07 16:56:10 -0700, "Angela Bassett-Hound" <eat it all @
balls N all.com> said:
Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade
by Scott Ott
(2004-10-06) -- Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals inadvertently
overturned the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling today
when it denied Rush Limbaugh's petition to protect his right of privacy
regarding medical records.
A spokesman for the court said that by ruling Mr. Limbaugh had no right to
privacy regarding medical records, it denied the central tenet of the 1972
Roe V. Wade ruling in which the Supreme Court found that the right to
privacy protected a woman's right to an abortion, at least for several
months.
"On behalf of the 4th District Court of Appeals," the unnamed spokesman
said, "Oops."
"The court wasn't trying to ban abortion," he added. "We just wanted to
protect the right of the state to seize medical documents that are unrelated
to a future, potentially-criminal, case in which the future alleged
defendant might conceivably be charged."
Mr. Limbaugh, a radio talkshow host and unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney
presidential campaign, told a reporter "If you want a reaction quote from
me, you'll have to get a search warrant. But if you get the warrant, you can
have every word I've ever spoken."
Is stupidity a requirement for being pro-life? First off, the 4th
District Court of Appeals can’t “overturn” the United States Supreme
Court. Second, the the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled Limbaugh
didn’t have a right to privacy to medical records in this particular
case, not generally, and third, Roe v. Wade is not based in a right to
privacy of ones medical records. To quote your idiotic “unnamed
spokesman,” Oops.
As far as I can tell, all of you pro-lifers have the education and
knowledge of the law of the average prison guard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Resasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade |
08 Oct 2004 09:12:26 AM |
|
|
"Elmo" <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:2004100721031275249%efspro@bartoludeledu...
On 2004-10-07 16:56:10 -0700, "Angela Bassett-Hound" <eat it all @ balls N
all.com> said:
Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade
by Scott Ott
(2004-10-06) -- Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals inadvertently
overturned the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling today
when it denied Rush Limbaugh's petition to protect his right of privacy
regarding medical records.
A spokesman for the court said that by ruling Mr. Limbaugh had no right
to
privacy regarding medical records, it denied the central tenet of the
1972
Roe V. Wade ruling in which the Supreme Court found that the right to
privacy protected a woman's right to an abortion, at least for several
months.
"On behalf of the 4th District Court of Appeals," the unnamed spokesman
said, "Oops."
"The court wasn't trying to ban abortion," he added. "We just wanted to
protect the right of the state to seize medical documents that are
unrelated
to a future, potentially-criminal, case in which the future alleged
defendant might conceivably be charged."
Mr. Limbaugh, a radio talkshow host and unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney
presidential campaign, told a reporter "If you want a reaction quote from
me, you'll have to get a search warrant. But if you get the warrant, you
can
have every word I've ever spoken."
Is stupidity a requirement for being pro-life? First off, the 4th
District Court of Appeals can't "overturn" the United States Supreme
Court. Second, the the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled Limbaugh didn't
have a right to privacy to medical records in this particular case, not
generally, and third, Roe v. Wade is not based in a right to privacy of
ones medical records. To quote your idiotic "unnamed spokesman," Oops.
As far as I can tell, all of you pro-lifers have the education and
knowledge of the law of the average prison guard.
And from what I've seen prochoicers have all the deniability of the US
government. They constantly deny what is true in order to somehow change
what is true. Just like the US government, they will always have people
going up against them who know the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade |
08 Oct 2004 09:23:08 AM |
|
|
On 2004-10-08 07:12:26 -0700, "Resasoned Insanity"
<mintclovers@yahoo.com> said:
"Elmo" <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:2004100721031275249%efspro@bartoludeledu...
On 2004-10-07 16:56:10 -0700, "Angela Bassett-Hound" <eat it all @
balls N all.com> said:
Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade
by Scott Ott
(2004-10-06) -- Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals inadvertently
overturned the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling today
when it denied Rush Limbaugh's petition to protect his right of privacy
regarding medical records.
A spokesman for the court said that by ruling Mr. Limbaugh had no right to
privacy regarding medical records, it denied the central tenet of the 1972
Roe V. Wade ruling in which the Supreme Court found that the right to
privacy protected a woman's right to an abortion, at least for several
months.
"On behalf of the 4th District Court of Appeals," the unnamed spokesman
said, "Oops."
"The court wasn't trying to ban abortion," he added. "We just wanted to
protect the right of the state to seize medical documents that are unrelated
to a future, potentially-criminal, case in which the future alleged
defendant might conceivably be charged."
Mr. Limbaugh, a radio talkshow host and unpaid advisor to the Bush-Cheney
presidential campaign, told a reporter "If you want a reaction quote from
me, you'll have to get a search warrant. But if you get the warrant, you can
have every word I've ever spoken."
Is stupidity a requirement for being pro-life? First off, the 4th
District Court of Appeals can't "overturn" the United States Supreme
Court. Second, the the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled Limbaugh
didn't have a right to privacy to medical records in this particular
case, not generally, and third, Roe v. Wade is not based in a right to
privacy of ones medical records. To quote your idiotic "unnamed
spokesman," Oops.
As far as I can tell, all of you pro-lifers have the education and
knowledge of the law of the average prison guard.
And from what I've seen prochoicers have all the deniability of the US
government. They constantly deny what is true in order to somehow
change what is true. Just like the US government, they will always have
people going up against them who know the truth.
LOL! What “truth“ is that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|