Partial Birth Act Upheld
Volokh, Eugene
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Thu Apr 19 09:14:47 PDT 2007
And you should equally say that many conservatives don't think
that government welfare programs do not, on balance, help actual people
(or help them more than hurt them), or think -- whether rightly or
wrongly -- that private charity is the better approach, or for that
matter think that government help in shielding people against killing is
more important than government help in shielding people against poverty.
*You* may think that evidence shows that private charity and the market
doesn't fix these problems. But other well-intentioned people may
disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. To say to your
constitutional law class that people who disagree with your sense of the
evidence are not only mistaken on the evidence but don't "care about
actual people" strikes me as deeply unsound (especially when many of
them, as Earl Maltz, I think, pointed out, spend a good deal of time
both opposing abortion and helping actual people).
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malla Pollack [mailto:mpollack at ajsl.us]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:58 AM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
>
> No. You should say that liberals don't think that "helping
> poor children"
> is related to this type of choice of schools.
>
> The analogy, which is my original point, is that people who
> insist on (i) unwanted children being born to women without
> the money to care for them and
> (ii) people in extreeme pain who cannot recover having to
> spend an extra 12 months dying BUT simultaneous vote to cut
> budgets for welfare of any kind and hosptial aids AND take no
> other action providing serivces analogous to welfare or
> hosipital staff Have a definition of life that discounts
> actual people.
>
> Relying on the market is the common excuse, but the evidence
> shows the market does not fix these problems. Insisting on
> using one, and only one, help method, in the teath of
> empirical evidence that it does not work, is a clear sign (to
> pragmatic me) that you don't care abou the problem.
>
>
>
> Malla Pollack
> Professor, American Justice School of Law mpollack at ajsl.us
> 270-744-3300 x 28 articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:52 AM
> To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
>
> Got it -- so whenever one thinks that people aren't
> supporting the troops as much as one thinks ought to be the
> case (or in the way that one thinks is really effective),
> that shows they don't really care about the troops, and
> that's something one should tell one's students in con law
> class, right? And of course in that case the analogy I noted
> is entirely on point: If one thinks that "improvement to
> education of poor children is simply not happening," because
> liberals don't have the proper "deep commitment" to actually
> giving poor children educational choice, like middle- and
> upper-class children already have, one should be telling
> one's con law students that liberals don't really care about
> poor children.
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Malla Pollack [mailto:mpollack at ajsl.us]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:25 AM
> > To: Volokh, Eugene; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> >
> >
> > I assume Eugene wrote this before he read my long post.
> >
> > OF course, his analogy is way off. I am not discussing
> > people disagreeing
> > about how to do something - I am talking about the fact that taking
> > care of the poor is simply not happening -- and that polticians etc
> > mouth concern for the theory of "life" being importtnat, but do not
> > act with similar deep commitment to actual help for poor persons --
> > Obvious, I have no figures, but I bet that if this country
> had good,
> > affordable, day care for all children the desire for
> abortions would
> > drop like a rock.
> >
> > What someone really means is shown by what that person does
> > -- just as words in legal rules mean the set of facts where
> judges are
> > willing to see them met.
> >
> > As for the poster who claimed that a large percentage of
> the poor are
> > merely lazy -- that is not empirically supported. I will
> assume the
> > poster was writing too quickly and did not mean -- after all that
> > happened to me earlier.
> >
> > Now, I reallydo have to go back to teaching work.
> >
> > Malla Pollack
> > Professor, American Justice School of Law mpollack at ajsl.us
> > 270-744-3300 x 28 articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> Volokh, Eugene
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:26 PM
> > To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> >
> > The question isn't whether Malla is right or wrong.
> > The question is whether it's fair to infer that people who disagree
> > with one on such economic questions must therefore not "care about
> > actual people."
> >
> > Say that I, when teaching the school aid classes in my Religion
> > Clauses class, I "[kept] pointing out to my students ...
> that persons
> > arguing for [a separationist view of the Establishment
> Clause] do not
> > seem to care about actual children," based on my firm belief that
> > school choice would be much better for children than the
> public school
> > monopoly.
> > Fair? Sound pedagogy? Or should I perhaps consider the
> possibility
> > that people who disagree with me on the subject do so out of a good
> > faith judgment that their view is better for actual
> children, even if
> > I think their judgment is mistaken?
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frank Cross [mailto:crossf at mail.utexas.edu]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:47 PM
> > > To: Malla Pollack; Volokh, Eugene; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > >
> > >
> > > Plainly, charity cannot take care of all the needs of the poor.
> > > However, it is helpful. And it is significant that
> > religious people
> > > contribute far more voluntary charity to help the poor
> than do the
> > > non-religious.
> > >
> > > And empirical studies also support the claim that positive
> > rights do
> > > not work to help the poor. Which is the best reason to
> oppose them.
> > >
> > >
> > > At 07:34 PM 4/18/2007, Malla Pollack wrote:
> > > >I know of no empirical studies which even come close to
> > > asserting that the
> > > >poor in the US are being well taken care of by private
> > > charity. Empircal
> > > >studies do, however, support the claim that the "trickle
> > > down" theory of
> > > >economics does not work.
> > > >
> > > >Malla Pollack
> > > >Professor, American Justice School of Law mpollack at ajsl.us
> > > >270-744-3300 x 28 articles
> http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > >[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> > > Volokh, Eugene
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:01 PM
> > > >To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > >Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > >
> > > > Really? Anyone who cares about actual people must
> > > as a logical
> > > >matter push for positive rights? It's not possible that
> > some caring
> > > >people might take the view that government funding for such
> > > matters is
> > > >counterproductive, or less effective than private funding?
> > It's not
> > > >possible that they might think that whatever the merits of such
> > > >programs, the Constitution does not support a "'minimum
> > > support' theory
> > > >of positive rights"?
> > > >
> > > > It's one thing to argue in favor of positive
> > > rights; it's quite
> > > >another, it seems to me, to suggest that one's opponents
> > > must therefore
> > > >simply not "care about actual people."
> > > >
> > > > Eugene
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Earl Maltz
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:56 PM
> > > > > To: Malla Pollack; medina at loyno.edu; 'Gilbert,Lauren'; 'Rick
> > > > > Duncan'; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > > >
> > > > > This is an outright slander on those deeply-religious
> people who
> > > > > often devote substantial amounts of time on the
> ground working
> > > > > to improve the lives of poor people rather than sitting in an
> > > > > ivory tower pontificating about the need for some abstract
> > > > > constitutional theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > At 01:35 PM 4/18/2007 -0500, Malla Pollack wrote:
> > > > > >What I keep pointing out to my students in Con Law II is
> > > > > that persons
> > > > > >arguing for a state interest in "life per se" eg against
> > > > > assisted suicide,
> > > > > >abortion, etc, do not seem to care about actual people. If
> > > > > they did, they
> > > > > >would push for a "minimum support" theory of positive
> > > > > rights. Maybe I
> > > > > >am in the super minority, but I think that many
> > > abortions would not
> > > > > >requested if the the government acually provided affordable
> > > > > (i) child
> > > > > >day care, (ii) health care, and (iii) job training & jobs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I simply do not understand how caring for "life" can mean
> > > > > anything in
> > > > > >the absence of caring for people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Malla Pollack
> > > > > >Professor, American Justice School of Law mpollack at ajsl.us
> > > > > 270-744-3300
> > > > > >x 28 articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > >[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf
> Of medina
> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:23 PM
> > > > > >To: Gilbert,Lauren; Rick Duncan; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > >Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Lauren, I think it's striking how absent women are in
> > > > > Justice Kennedy's
> > > > > >opinion. The opinion discusses the procedure extensively,
> > > > > physicians
> > > > > >and medical judgment but women appear as bystanders to the
> > > > > issue and to
> > > > > >"the abortion right."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >M. Isabel Medina
> > > > > >Ferris Family Professor of Law
> > > > > >Loyola University New Orleans
> > > > > >College of Law
> > > > > >7214 St. Charles Ave.
> > > > > >New Orleans, LA 70118
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >----- Original Message Follows -----
> > > > > >From: "Gilbert, Lauren" <lgilbert at stu.edu>
> > > > > >To: "Rick Duncan" <nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com>,
> > > > > ><CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
> > > > > >Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > > > >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:08:15 -0400
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > How, may I ask, is this "a very good thing" for women who
> > > > > are denied
> > > > > > > the use of a medical procedure that many doctors
> > say is often
> > > > > > > necessary to save their lives?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lauren Gilbert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Associate Professor of Law
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > St. Thomas University School of Law
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > > > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> > > > > Rick Duncan
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:28 PM
> > > > > > > To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmmm. Is this a criticism of the majority opinion? Or is
> > > > > the point
> > > > > > > that the abortion doctor does not "kill the fetus" or
> > > > > that the fetus
> > > > > > > is not a "living organism within the womb."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Noonan used to write that Roe v. Wade was based upon
> > > > > a "mask"
> > > > > > > imposed by the law on the reality of abortion and the
> > > reality of
> > > > > > > human life in the womb.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't read Justice Kennedy's opinion yet, but it
> > > > > sounds like he
> > > > > > > took the mask off abortion and focused on the
> reality of the
> > > > > > > abortion liberty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And that is a very good thing for the Constitution, for
> > > > > our country,
> > > > > > > and for both men and women.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rick Duncan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Darren Hutchinson <dhutchinson at wcl.american.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the vein of law and literature, has anyone seen an
> > > > > abortion
> > > > > > > ruling that so graphically describes the procedures? Or
> > > > > which finds
> > > > > > > that the doctor "kills the fetus"? Or that a fetus
> > > is a "living
> > > > > > > organism within the womb"? Or which declares that
> > > "respect for
> > > > > > > human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond
> > > of love the
> > > > > > > mother has for her child"? The last phrase sounds a
> > > little like
> > > > > > > Justice Bradley in Bradwell v. Illinois. I added
> > the italics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Darren Lenard Hutchinson
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Professor of Law
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > American University, Washington College of Law
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Washington, D.C. 20016
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phone: (202) 274-4048
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fax: (202) 730-4587
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email: dhutchinson at wcl.american.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Webpage: http://wcl.american.edu/faculty/hutchinson/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > > > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Darren
> > > > > > > Hutchinson
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:16 AM
> > > > > > > To: 'Frank Cross'; 'Mark Tushnet'; 'ConLaw Prof'
> > > > > > > Subject: Partial Birth Act Upheld
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone have a copy of the opinion yet? I have
> > > > > searched without
> > > > > > > success.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/18/n
> > > > > ational/w0
> > > > > >7
> > > > > > > 5329D38.DTL&type=politics
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > > > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> > > > > password, see
> > > > > > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list
> > > cannot be
> > > > > > > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the
> list and read
> > > > > > > messages that are posted; people can read the Web
> > > > > archives; and list
> > > > > > > members can (rightly or
> > > > > > > wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rick Duncan
> > > > > > > Welpton Professor of Law
> > > > > > > University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE
> 68583-0902
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us
> > > > > > > doubt God's existence and then start sinning.
> Most of us sin
> > > > > > > and then start doubting His existence." --J.
> > > > > > > Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the
> > > > > > > perversion of the best is the worst." -- Id.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> > > > > > > Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/n>
> > > > > ew_cars.html;_
> > > > > > > ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbG
> > > > > > > > sDbmV3LWNhcnM-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> > > > > > > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password ,
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list
> cannot be
> > > > > > > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and
> > > > > > > read messages that are posted; people can read the Web
> > > > > > > archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward
> > > > > > > the messages to others.
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> > > > > >subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > > > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
> > > be viewed as
> > > > > >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > > messages that are
> > > > > >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> > > > > can (rightly or
> > > > > >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--
> > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release
> > > > > Date: 4/18/2007
> > > > > >7:39 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> > > > > >subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > > > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > > > > viewed as
> > > > > >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> > > > > that are
> > > > > >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> > > > > can (rightly or
> > > > > >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe,
> > > > > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > > > > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > > > > messages that are posted; people can read the Web
> archives; and
> > > > > list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to
> > > > > others.
> > > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> > > >unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > >
> > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
> > be viewed as
> > > >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are
> > > >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> > > can (rightly or
> > > >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release
> > > Date: 4/18/2007
> > > >7:39 AM
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> > > >unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > >
> > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
> be viewed
> > > >as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that
> > > >are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
> members can
> > > >(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as
> > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are
> > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> > (rightly or
> > wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release
> > Date: 4/18/2007
> > 7:39 AM
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release
> Date: 4/19/2007
> 5:32 AM
>
>
>
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list