Subj : Laws vs. Legal precedent To : ALAN IANSON From : Mike Powell Date : Sat Sep 24 2022 10:44:00 > > 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. You still do not seem to. > > 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. But they were needed. Otherwise, it would still be legal. > > 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 ha > privacy/abortion/human/health care rights. The problem is that privacy is covered. Abortion is not specificially covered. It is difficult to call it personl privacy because it (usually) takes two people to cause a pregnancy, and both of those people have rights. > Nope, I was not talking about the errosion of democracy or freedom. That was a > pin you put into my words. > > I think the right in the US is a danger to democracy to be clear, but that is > t what I am talking about here. From earlier in THIS VERY THREAD: | Conservatives are unified alright. | | No more democracy. +-[AI=>AT] AI is you. That little arrow means you said it to AT (Aaron). That text was still in the first message I responded to. So, tell me again that you are/were not discussing the errosion of democracy. > > 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 civ > > 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. But the law was written that way originally, until others pointed it out. I don't really think they MEANT to write it that way, but they obviously didn't read it too well or didn't understand the language they used in their own bill. > > 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 > o write laws about it. They are not only covering natural death. See the word "terminated" in the previous paragraph. > > 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 abortio > to be legal. > > I don't actually know where that comes from or what it actually means. Then they wrote it wrong. It got fixed but only after people saw it, but to point out that it was written that way is not propaganda because it is true. Otherwise, why did they feel the need to amend it to fix it? It "comes from" the original text of the law being too vague. > > 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. I know so, and so did Democrats long before it happened. > What I am saying is that if Roe v Wade is settled law (precedent) as many have > aid then there isn't really a reason for law makers to codify any law. To stop it from being overturned. You seemed to understand that in your statement previous to this one but I guess not. > > 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. They most certainly did. I don't want it to be made illegal nationwide, either but if it happens the Democrats played a part in it by not doing their stated jobs ("elect us and we will do something to protect it!"). * SLMR 2.1a * Don't be sexist. Broads hate that. --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105) .