Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 6 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
In short, what the bill did was “mirror” the mandate of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision which, in 1973, legalized abortion and had the effect of striking down Virginia’s existing abortion laws. The Durrette bill was intended to implement the Supreme Court decision, y&t crank in aS many1 limitations bh abortion as possible. It had the support of the state’s leading anti-abortion groups and his sponsorship of the measure does not appear to have been inconsistent with Durrette’s present views on the subject.
The flip-flop charge was made more plausible because Durrette had, indeed, reversed his position on the Equal Rights Amendment and meet-and-confer negotiations for teachers. At various times during his service as a Northern Virginia legislator he favored both of these. This column, regrettably, was among those which accorded undeserved credibility to the charge that he had changed his views on abortion as well.
But a Durrette charge against Baliles is just as groundless and, in the context of Virginia politics, might prove even more deadly.
Durrette alleges that Baliles is soft in his support of the state’s “right-to-work” law. This is the law which says a person does not have to join a union in order to hold a job. In Virginia, which is overwhelmingly anti-union, for a
94.9%