Subj : Re: fbi To : Mike Powell From : Alan Ianson Date : Sat Sep 24 2022 01:00:18 >> 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. Yes, I understand. > 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. Yes, the rights of people (including privacy rights) (including women) are constitutionaly guaranteed. > 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). Laws were not written because they were not needed. > 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. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to codify these laws if some believe women don't have privacy/abortion/human/health care rights. >> > 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 assets have not been frozen. > BS, Al. No BS. I am talking straight with you. > 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. Nope, I was not talking about the errosion of democracy or freedom. That was a spin you put into my words. I think the right in the US is a danger to democracy to be clear, but that is not what I am talking about here. >> 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 civi > and criminal penalty and liability for "perinatal" death. "Perinatal" is > defined as the period around childbirth -- 5 months before and 1 month after. No, that is not what the pro-choice side wants or is doing. > 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. Pregnacy and the natural death of a fetus are natural things. There is no need to write laws about it. > 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. I don't think Californians, democrats or anyone else wants "post-birth abortion" to be legal. I don't actually know where that comes from or what it actually means. >> > Being spoken of something does not make it so. >> Are you suggesting that Roe V Wade was not considered to be precedent, or >> settled 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. I guess so, since that is what has now happened. > "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..." I have clarified that for you now, I hope. >> 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. What I am saying is that if Roe v Wade is settled law (precedent) as many have said then there isn't really a reason for law makers to codify any law. >> It seems today the republican party wants to (and is working on) a national >> abortion 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. The democrats have not wasted anything. What is happening now is a waste. --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6 * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757) .