There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Gonzales v. Carhart
I'm writing a law journal article on this case, and in it, I get to diss Michael Behe and Schlafly's American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.... BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. I'm so happy. Thought you might appreciate it.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 17:51, 7 November 2007 (EST)
I don't know if this user, AMESG is still her, but I would love to see him explain a bit about Ginsburg's feminist "point of view". If not, i'll research it and write something, but it sounds fascinating. --Waiting for Godot 12:34, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ames is still here, although in what is certainly a clear incident of liberal deceit, he is now known as Caius. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ahh, then I'll have to go thank him on his page, cause I've been reading a few feminist Legal experts and its a fascinating side of the argument I hadn't even considered! Go Women!--Waiting for Godot 15:21, 7 August 2008 (EDT)--Waiting for Godot 15:21, 7 August 2008 (EDT)