-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now! From: acmidwife@netscape.net Mon Apr 23 21:02:23 2007 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Joe: "Re: CLIA tests" Previous message: art fougner, md: "Re: CLIA tests" In reply to: Dr Eberhard Lisse: "Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now!" Next in thread: Raymond Stephen: "Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now!" Reply: Raymond Stephen: "Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now!" El The Supreme Court often does seem to see things different than Joe P., which is unfortunate b/c his interpretation is correct. In the past they have ruled unconstitutionally.... to the detriment of the entire nation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We see that in every nation and civilization throughout history. The US is not an acception, however.... it is, in my opinion.... the best place on earth to live.:) acm -----Original Message----- From: el@lisse.NA To: ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net Sent: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 7:15 AM Subject: Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now! I did not write that something like this is written into the Constitution, however, the Supreme Court seems to see it different from you. el on 4/23/07 1:02 PM DoctorJoe@aol.com said the following: > > In a message dated 4/23/07 12:17:09 AM, el@lisse.NA writes: > >> As far as I understand the US Constitution there is separation of chruch >> and state. But then as Gerry would say, I am often wrong. > > Exactly. That is, the latter is exactly right. LOL > > The U.S. Constitution has no such animal. It merely says that the State > cannot FAVOR one over the other. The "Separation" concept is a newly > created thing which really has no basis in the document itself or in the > Founding Fathers' writings or early jurisprudence. In fact, some of the > current argument is actually unconstitutional, as it prohibits free > exercise. > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . . U.S. Const. Amend. I. > > Joe P. > -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ________________________________________________________________________ Next message: Joe: "Re: CLIA tests" Previous message: art fougner, md: "Re: CLIA tests" In reply to: Dr Eberhard Lisse: "Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now!" Next in thread: Raymond Stephen: "Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now!" Reply: Raymond Stephen: "Re: Abortion? ... here we go again! Sheesh! -->ConLaw now!"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Jul 2 04:46:26 2008

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.