cc: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
edlind at dickinson.edu
Thu Apr 19 17:40:32 PDT 2007
Lynne can speak for herself, of course. But I suspect her reference to incivility might have had something to do with your comments about "people who'd rather sponge off of society" and "low lifes".
On Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:28 PM, Royce wrote:
>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500
>To: "Lynne Henderson" <hendersl at ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld
>I'm afraid I don't understand your point, Ms. Henderson. Was there something
>that Frank or I wrote that indicated that we were doing other than civilly
>discussing the issue? I believe we have both shown a high degree of respect
>for the other's position and have not engaged in any hysterics or otherwise
>The issue is an emotional one for some people. Emotional discussion doesn't
>lead to understanding. It leads to rhetoric and foot stomping. I don't think
>either Frank or myself have done either.
>I was not addressing any comment you may have made and I don't think Frank
>was either. I could be wrong.
>From: Lynne Henderson [mailto:hendersl at ix.netcom.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:57 PM
>Cc: 'Con Law Prof list'
>Subject: Re: Partial Birth Act Upheld
>Can we all calm down a bit? I know *lots* of poor and working poor
>people who work long hours for little pay and who need private or
>public charity just to eat or have a roof over their heads (alas, the
>index for poverty hasn't taken into account the huge growth in housing
>expenses in the past 20 years). I've watched battered women struggle
>to survive and find work when they do what they are "supposed
>to"--leave and find work, only to have their abusers track them down at
>the workplace and cause the employer grief or cause the employer to
>fire the women. I realize that there is a long-held belief in *The
>Undeserving Poor* (great book tracing the ambivalence we have had over
>time--and see *NY v. Miln* about the pestilence of paupers) in the
>United States and that yes, there are some people who prefer the dole,
>but it is not a significant number and they are still human beings.
>I understand these are emotional times and emotional issues, but my
>attempt at irony yesterday (poor attempt, sorry ) about being outraged
>as a secular humanist was no help at all, and I apologize. We have
>wars with terrible violence, we have terrorists who would love the U.S.
>to fail, we have psychotics with guns killing innocent people and
>scaring us all in the academy, we have the emotions of the abortion
>case, we have real fears and anxieties. But beating up on one another
>or others won't help us reach understanding the Constitution's limits
>and benefits. And if we cannot do it, as someone said earlier, we
>cannot expect our students or others to converse civilly and
>On Apr 19, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Royce wrote:
>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.
More information about the Conlawprof