Subj : Re: fbi To : ALAN IANSON From : Mike Powell Date : Fri Sep 23 2022 16:51:00 > Yes, roe v wade is settled law and precedent for 40 or 50 years. > https://youtu.be/Bjs-qO0N2ZI > The issue is not about democrats codifying law. It was the law until a radical > upreme court stepped all over it a few months ago. We learned all about that in US History classes. I don't think you have a firm grasp on how things become law in the United States, or how court rulings work. The problem with such "laws" that you don't seem to understand was that it was decided by a court ruling. It was not EVER written into official law. "Laws" that are actually interpretation of law by court ruling can very much be overturned by later court rulings. This is not an unusual thing to happen. It does not matter how long ago the original ruling was decided, it is never, ever on solid ground until it is passed into LAW by Congress, and then until it passes the test of being Constitutional (something that would happen in the courts). The Democrats knew this could happen... they bring up how abortion could be overturned if they are not elected during EVERY election cycle. They never do anything when they can because then they could not keep using that threat to abortion rights during their campaigns. > > Last I checked, we still have a greater freedom of speech, expression, and > > especially to assemble than you do in Canada. When we assemble, our Prime > > Minister does not freeze our assets, for example. > We are not talking about freedom but I have plenty of freedom in Canada and my > ssets have not been frozen. BS, Al. You brought up the errosion of US democracy and freedom (specifically, to have an abortion). You then cut up the quotes above to make it look like we were "not talking about" it. > > It is murder if they can do it after birth. I have not confirmed Aaron's > > suggestion that they can in Virginia, but California was considering > > allowing babies carried to term to be terminiated after birth. I did not > > keep track of how far that got. > This is not what the pro-choice side is doing, it is another right wing talkin > point. No, it actually isn't. I looked it up. The problem comes from how the bill was originally written. It was written to remove all penalties for the outcome of a pregnacy, i.e. one that was terminated or where a baby is stillborn. However, as originally written, the language also removed all civil and criminal penalty and liability for "perinatal" death. "Perinatal" is defined as the period around childbirth -- 5 months before and 1 month after. That last bit is the important part. They meant to absolve anyone whose child dies of natural causes within the preinatal period. Because the language was vague, and did not specifically state what they meant by "perinatal" period, it left the door open for a court to interpret the law as including children that died from other non-natural causes during the first month after birth. Once the "California wants to make post-birth abortion legal" news started spreading, the legal team for the legislator who introduced the bill introduced amendments to close those potential loopholes/legal misinterpretations. > > Being spoken of something does not make it so. > Are you suggesting that Roe V Wade was not considered to be precedent, or sett > d law? > https://youtu.be/ks1skEKwlrk Not at all, but being court precedent does not mean that the court cannot overturn it later. Making it LAW would have solved that issue, so long as the LAW was written in a manner that would allow it to stand up to the test of being Constitutional. "Settled laws" that are the result of court interpretations are only settled until they get overturned, which is not unusual. > > You speak of all sorts of things that are not so, and sometimes you later > claim > not to have spoken them when you realize as much. > Can you give me an example? I just did above, where you said "we are not talking about freedom..." > > There were several years between Roe v Wade and now where the Democrats had > > both a President and majority in congress yet chose not to codify it into > > national law. That would have been a much better solution, if they wanted > > one, vs. a "spoken of" SCOTUS ruling. > It would have been better but why would they do that? To make it official so that a later court ruling could not overturn it... which, guess what, happened! Plus, they always promise to, if elected, during EVERY election cycle. > It seems today the republican party wants to (and is working on) a national ab > tion ban of some sort. Could be, but it will have to stand the test of being Constitutional. If the Democrats had not wasted several opportunites to make it LAW, the Republican task of creating a ban would be much more difficult. * SLMR 2.1a * Ensign Walnut approaches Dr. Crusher with caution.... --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105) .