Subj : Laws vs. Legal precedent
To   : Mike Powell
From : Alan Ianson
Date : Sat Sep 24 2022 08:38:58

>> Laws were not written because they were not needed.

> But they were needed.  Otherwise, it would still be legal.

No, Roe was overturned by an extreme SCOTUS.

>> 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
>> t what I am talking about here.

> From earlier in THIS VERY THREAD:

I said that earlier in the thread but that was not what I was talking about.

> 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.

OK then, I'll tell you again. I said that earlier in the thread but I am not talking about that now.

If you want to talk about something I said ealier then bring it up and we'll talk about it. In any case that is not what I was talking about.

>> 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 a great talking point that you and other bring up from time to time but it is not what the pro-choice side wants or is doing.

> They are not only covering natural death.  See the word "terminated" in the
> previous paragraph.

You want to bring something into it but I am not going. Feel free to discuss that with others.

>> 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.

> To stop it from being overturned.  You seemed to understand that in your
> statement previous to this one but I guess not.

I understand that Roe v Wade is/was considered settled law (before the extreme SCOTUS overturned it) and that is why laws were not needed.

> 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!").

If it happens it's because the republican party wants it and pushes it through not because of anything the democrats did. The democrats don't want or work for it.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
 * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

.