Partial Birth Act Upheld
redbeard at ufl.edu
Thu Apr 19 09:20:42 PDT 2007
Right...so when conservatives represent liberals' positions, they should
say that liberals merely have a different but also completely valid
viewpoint, but when liberals represent conservatives' positions, they
should say that conservatives don't care about children (and probably
eat puppies, as well).
Following your logic, then, should we allow post-natal abortions for
poor mothers who lose their jobs/welfare benefits/whatever and cannot
provide for their children? Why should she lose that important
constitutional right merely because her means of supporting a family
vanished after birth, as opposed to before?
Malla Pollack wrote:
> 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
> 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.
More information about the Conlawprof