When life begins and the Establishment Clause

[Volokh, Eugene]

    Hmm -- what do you say to the extended quote from Nat Hentoff, a
thoughtful, nonreligious man of the left who supports bans on
partial-birth abortions?  I would have thought that this did involve
"com[ing] up with a non religious reason anyone would push this statute"
(it was I who posted that, not Richard, but I assume this doesn't
matter).
 
    Eugene


________________________________

	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Malla Pollack
	Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:04 PM
	To: 'Richard Dougherty'; 'Con Law Prof list'
	Subject: RE: When life begins and the Establishment Clause
	
	

	I am perplexed by your perplexitty.  To anyone outside the
anit-abortion camp the tie to a certain subset of religuos groups seems
obvoius.  I would think that your inability to come up with a non
religious reason anyone would push this statute supports my belief.
The only analogy I can come with is the 17th century? claim that logic
would inevitably lead humans to religion and -oddly enough - to
Christianity.  This "logic" obvously came from the thinker's religious
background, but the thinkers could not see it. 

	 

	Malla Pollack

	Professor, American Justice School of Law

	mpollack at ajsl.us

	270-744-3300 x 28

	articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/

	
________________________________


	From: Richard Dougherty [mailto:doughr at udallas.edu] 
	Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:52 PM
	To: malla pollack; 'Richard Dougherty'; 'Con Law Prof list'
	Subject: Re: When life begins and the Establishment Clause

	 

	I have to admit that I am perplexed at this point.  The argument
is being made that this is an Establishment Clause violation, and yet
the only evidence that is proposed to prove this is what Congress and
the Courts have not said?  There is not a word in the two relevant texts
under review here that supports such a conclusion, so I think the onus
is not on the one disproving a negative. 

	Richard J. Dougherty

	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: "Malla Pollack" <mpollack at ajsl.us>
	Sent 4/19/2007 1:39:30 PM
	To: "'Richard Dougherty'" <doughr at udallas.edu>, "'Con Law Prof
list'" <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
	Subject: RE: When life begins and the Establishment Clause
	
	
	

	So what? All that shows is that legislators have not stated
plainly why they care about this.  What other basis exists?  

	 

	Malla Pollack

	Professor, American Justice School of Law

	mpollack at ajsl.us

	270-744-3300 x 28

	articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/

	
________________________________


	From: Richard Dougherty [mailto:doughr at udallas.edu] 
	Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:31 PM
	To: malla pollack; 'Richard Dougherty'; 'Volokh, Eugene';
CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: Re: When life begins and the Establishment Clause

	 

	Well, I just reread the text of the Act, and looked through the
39 pages of the Court's opinion, and the closest I can come to a
religious argument is a reference to acting "in good faith," which I
don't think has anything to do with religion in the context.  Am I
missing something?

	Richard J. Dougherty

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070419/ecc9f2cd/attachment.html