If a fetus is a child under Mississippi law, abortion is already illegal. If abortion is legal, a fetus isn’t a child.

I’m all for pregant mother’s relationships with their children being preserved; her choice whether or not to have additional children by carrying a fetus to term or not is part of that.

Seroj’s IRAC summary comes from the St. Louis University School of Law.

Where does SLU rank, anyway…fourth tier?

Oh wait…they couldn’t even get on the rankings.

Well, that’s what we called “detrimental reliance” in my Torts class. Caveat emptor, Seroj.

He then invokes arcane religious incantations into his cipher so that those who are supportive yet prone to be shocked and repelled when confronted with the actions of prolife terrorists are then reassured that the mission is of godly origin, which then triggers chemical reactions in the brain that soothe their discomfort. This is religious prolife terrorism in all its naked simplicity. The purpose is clearly not to protect lives, but rather to wage a campaign of terror and appeal to those who are sufficiently soothed by religious incantations to overcome their revulsion to committing acts of terrorism.

I’m not an expert on terrorism, but that’s how I understand it. I’m not sure if Carnivore is still used and/or if it is being used to monitor internet exchanges such as this.

See here for commentary surrounding this statement: “First, to give a summary of the IRAC format […]: it stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.” (Bold emphasis added.)

Textbook synopses from Legalbooks.com break IRAC in the same manner, with A = Analysis.

I could continue, but I’m certain you get the point.

Further, my legal writing II prof taught ARAC: Assertion, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.

I’m reminded of an old saying: There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

And to quote Margalis yet again today: “Fail.”

Depends on your school, dude. And, gee, in order to effectively apply the law to the facts, one must analyze. Hence “Analysis.”

And in any event, your answer neglects to address the substance of my comment - that the criticisms leveled at Carhart go to Kennedy’s reasoning.

—–

Didn’t Ginsberg read her dissent from the bench b/c she was so angry at Kennedy’s patronizing attitude in Carhart?

That was an awesome comment.

Ismone

I’m eagerly awaiting a response from him that is something more that “nuh-uh!” “No you’re wrong!” is not really a powerful legal argument.

Amanda’s point was that the take away (or holding) of Carhart v Gonzalez, or of the Partial Birth Abortion law iself, was to protect women from themselves.

Let’s be clear that this is false, and laughably so.
…
Amanda apparently gets her law via slate.com. So I do give you credit for actually reading the case. Beyond that you are arguing that a marginal paragraph is the heart of the opinion.

You still obviously haven’t read it. Notice how I am citing page numbers and passages, and you…aren’t. Curious. Why it’s almost as if you have no idea WTF you are talking about.

That “marginal paragraph” was several pages long and it was not dicta. Those paragraphs about the guilt women feel were used in this specific case to show that the state has a compelling interest to interfere and was directly relevant.

Fail.

Totally, dude. It’s just that you got the “A” part wrong, though. It’s Application, not Analysis.

http://law.slu.edu/academic_support/irac.html