<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with SupremeCourt and roevwade</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/SupremeCourt+roevwade</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'SupremeCourt' and 'roevwade' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:51:59 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:51:59 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>...semaphoring to hard-core abortion opponents...</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/36198/semaphoring%2Dto%2Dhardcore%2Dabortion%2Dopponents</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/"&gt;Speaking in &lt;s&gt;Tongues&lt;/s&gt;Code&lt;/a&gt; --Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court and a President who signals his base in terms that fly over the heads of most of the country.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.36198</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:51:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>bush</category>
		<category>dredscott</category>
		<category>georgewbush</category>
		<category>roevwade</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<dc:creator>amberglow</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>On second thought ...</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/26539/On%2Dsecond%2Dthought</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mccorvey1.html"&gt;Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade wants veredict of Roe vs. Wade overturned&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;
CNN&apos;s legal expert says &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/18/otsc.toobin/index.html&quot;&gt;it will not happen&lt;/a&gt;. Findlaw.com has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00691/000314/title/Subject/topic/Constitutional%20Law_Privacy%20Rights/filename/constitutionallaw_1_91&quot;&gt;summary of the case for your perusal pleasure&lt;/a&gt;. Also worth remembering are the &lt;a href=&quot;http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/abortion_Laura_Bush010119.html&quot;&gt;ambiguous opinions&lt;/a&gt; of the current administration on the issue.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.26539</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:19:18 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>janeroe</category>
		<category>justice</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>roevwade</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<dc:creator>magullo</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>An Abortion Clinic Nightmare or An Activism Boon?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/23890/An%2DAbortion%2DClinic%2DNightmare%2Dor%2DAn%2DActivism%2DBoon</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2801839.stm&quot;&gt;A Supreme Court ruling with interesting implications&lt;/a&gt;:  All lower court racketeering convictions against pro-life protestors have been effectively overturned.  Operation Rescue is quite free to harass patients and blockade clinics again.  Is this a major dent in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.saveroe.com/&quot;&gt;campaign to save &lt;i&gt;Roe vs. Wade&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt;?  Or does this open up new possibilities for activists of all stripes?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.23890</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:59:35 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>activism</category>
		<category>activist</category>
		<category>blockade</category>
		<category>campaign</category>
		<category>clinic</category>
		<category>conviction</category>
		<category>nightmare</category>
		<category>operationrescue</category>
		<category>patients</category>
		<category>prolife</category>
		<category>racketeering</category>
		<category>roe</category>
		<category>roevwade</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<category>wade</category>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/14583/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/transcript3.php3"&gt;Scalia: Think the dealth penalty wrong? Resign&lt;/a&gt; In particular, he says, any Catholic jurist who agrees with the Vatican&apos;s anti-death penalty stance should resign. One to raise an eyebrow over, given that Scalia - a jurist who just happens to be Catholic - has been a consistent foe of &lt;i&gt;Roe v. Wade &lt;/i&gt; and legalized abortion. He says his opposition to &lt;i&gt;Roe&lt;/i&gt;, however, is mainly legal, and adds that his religious views should play no role in his decisions.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.14583</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:31:29 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Abortion</category>
		<category>Catholic</category>
		<category>DeathPenalty</category>
		<category>Roe</category>
		<category>RoeVWade</category>
		<category>Scalia</category>
		<category>SupremeCourt</category>
		<category>Vatican</category>
		<category>Wade</category>
		<dc:creator>raysmj</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


