Eddie,从这两则新闻看你对南达新法的理解是错的,我的理解是对的。


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛

送交者: james_hussein_bond 于 2011-02-16, 16:34:58:

昨天:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/south_dakota_legislator_defend.html
引用:
I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.

"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."


昨天这位议员的立场和你的是一样的。

今天:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/south_dakota_lawmaker_under_fi.html?wprss=plum-line

引用:
Jensen was aggressively defending the bill all day yesterday, arguing that its current language only applied to illegal acts and adamantly insisting that it couldn't be applied to the killing of abortion providers. But now, his decision to consider changing the bill amounts to an admission that the proposal may be flawed and perhaps not as clear cut as he insisted.

"There's no way in the world that I or any other representatives wish to see abortion doctors murdered," Jensen told me. "So we're looking at some language that will include that. We're looking at some language that would protect abortion providers."


他已经认错了,你呢?



所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码: 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容: (BBCode使用说明