cc: RE: Partial Birth Act Upheld

Douglas Edlin edlind at dickinson.edu
Thu Apr 19 17:40:32 PDT 2007


Royce,

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".

Doug
 
On Thursday, April 19, 2007  8:28 PM, Royce wrote:
>
>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:28:40 -0500
>From: Royce
>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
>unrespectful conversation.
>
>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.
>
>Royce Mitchell
>NWCU Law
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lynne Henderson [mailto:hendersl at ix.netcom.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:57 PM
>To: Royce
>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
>respectfully.
>Sincerely,
>Lynne Henderson
>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 mailing list