this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
198 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4201 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Tennessee Republican hopes to establish an "abortion trafficking" felony for adults who help pregnant minors get an out-of-state abortion without parental permission, an effort reproductive health advocates argue will run afoul of constitutional rights such as interstate travel.

Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, filed House Bill 1895 on Monday. The legislation would establish a new Class C felony, which could carry three to 15 years in prison, for an adult that "recruits, harbors or transports" a pregnant minor for the purposes of receiving an out-of-state abortion or for getting abortion medication.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BillDaCatt@kbin.social 47 points 10 months ago (1 children)

American citizens who reside in one state are not the property of that state and cannot be prohibited from traveling to other states. Case closed.

[–] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

With the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I am not holding my breath that the free commerce clause will apply to abortion.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Taking bets ....dude has a few minors he's raped and doesn't want to escape.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The laundry list of Republican politicians who have CSAM on their PCs, have done shit to kids personally, or lured children online grows.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Grows where, you ask? Well, we're up to page 49! https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook

[–] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 26 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Illinois just enacted a law that prevents alpr companies from sharing data outside of the state in order to protect people coming into the state for abortion.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago

Not being allowed to get your RAPED DAUGHTER life saving medical procedures is called FREEDOM and SAVING THE CHILDREN!

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Taking a minor out of state without parental consent is already a crime in most states, no?

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's ot about logic, it's about hiving police a reason to pull you over and search you without a warrant. Half the cars on the roads have at least one woman in them, which is now probable cause since you could be taking that woman to get an abortion.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As the laws catch up with the times and we see the gradual legalization of marijuana, "do i smell weed?" is getting replaced by "is that a pregnant minor you're trafficking across state lines for an abortion?" Cops gotta continue to make their $ and harass innocent citizens somehow

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

interstate travel has been a problem between states before roe fell

there are border like police agents at some borders already and have been for years

terry stops fully allowed with no need for suspicion of cause and some state borders are constansty watched for people crossing between states and this also applies to backroads

some of those backroads between states have been shut down since cannabis becoming legal in certain states became a thing

surprised there have not been more articles about this over the years

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Maybe let them get birth control without their parents' permission? They block that too

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is my home state, sadly. A bunch of backward religious zealots that were it not for secular institutions America would a mirror image of Saudi Arabia but Christian.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Reminder that the Civil War wasn't because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.

He repeatedly said he had no desire to do that.

The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn't force another state to follow their state laws.

And we're still having the same argument apparently.

Conservative states have always wanted to force their laws on liberal states. Because they see their state residents as property/serfs that the ruling conservatives control.

[–] kimjongunderdog@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, there was only one right that was in question. The average confederate soldier was there because he wanted to protect the white mans ability to own slaves because he thought he was going to get rich doing it once the war was over.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nope.

The majority of soldiers for the south were lied to and genuinely believed they were fighting for states rights.

They didn't know they were fighting for a more powerful federal government that would have the ability to force some states to follow the laws of other states.

Ironically the civil war was the final push that made the feds do what the south wanted to begin with. It's just the feds sided with northern states not southern states.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do you have any sources? I never heard of confederate soldiers being lied to.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Morale_and_motivations

Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.

Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters....

Only the wealthiest southerners could read and write, and if you were from the South and wealthy, it's a pretty safe bet your family owned slaves.

But the vast amount of southerners were too poor to ever afford slaves. So that greatly skews the sample.

But even the ones who explicitly stated they were fighting to keep slavery legal, the feds and Lincoln were adamant they weren't going to outlaw slavery on a federal level.

So those traitors who said they fought to keep slavery legal, were fighting to prevent something that wasn't going to happen. They just thought it would because the leaders of the Confederacy lied to them about it.

Just like the 1/6 traitors believed the reason they were attempting to overthrow the American government, was because they thought Biden stole an election.

Just because a conservative believes something, doesn't mean it's true.

[–] kimjongunderdog@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

"Now there is also another bit where it acknowledges some were explicitly fighting to defend slavery. However since what those researchers are using is letters…"

You're really handwaving away what's called a primary source of information. Those letters are actually really important for understanding what was going on in the heads of the soldiers at that time. The fact that they were explicitly writing about the right to own slaves shows that they were aware of what explicit right they were fighting for.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Clearly, the cons in these states think they OWN the people in them.

Remember just how much gaslighting the cons (and their tone-policing defenders in the "liberal media") did when it came to talking about the Gilead states and how that's not really a thing, don't worry, even the reddest of states will have freedoms.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Actually, from a legal standpoint, I think that they're on solid legal footing. I know that people may not want to hear that, but it is the truth.

You cannot take a minor across state lines to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, even if it is legal in the state they travel to. A 20 year old guy cannot, for example, take a 15 year old girl to a state where the age of consent is 14 in order to have sex with her. The same line of reasoning would apply here.

Now I'm not saying it's right by any stretch of the imagination. Applying this law under similar reasoning will do exponentially more harm than good for teenage girls in the state. But looking at it from a strictly legal standpoint, this law would be valid. Immoral, but valid.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm gonna need a legal citation for this claim.

You cannot take a minor across state lines to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, even if it is legal in the state they travel to.