this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
283 points (99.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3413 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
283
Tennessee Republican files 'abortion trafficking' bill for pregnant minors (www.tennessean.com)
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 100 points 7 months ago (3 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.

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The South believed that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery. Even if your claim is that true that Lincoln didn’t want to, you must remember that “perspective is reality”.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No, the leaders of the South told the citizens of the South that was going to happen, and that they were on the side of "state rights"...

Because that would get the most people to fight for them in a Civil War....

When the two sides are saying two different things, why are you choosing to believe the traitors word over Lincolns?

He explicitly said in in his inauguration speech that he wasn't going to outlaw slavery, and he kept saying it until the Civil War was halfway over...

Why do you believe conservative lies from over a century ago?

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Because I believe the south’s word because it’s the truth: The war was about Slavery, which is why they wanted to secede from the union. They wanted to keep human bondage till the end of time.

Thank god we won, I just wish we killed more of them, though.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Shit, accidentally deleted when I meant to edit. My bad.

Was going to add "halfway over" instead of over because Lincoln never mentioned outlawing slavery till the civil war was halfway over.

But I don't get listening to the conservative lies over what was actually happening.

Do you think 1/6 was Republicans trying to save an election from being stolen?

That clearly wasn't what happened, but that's what conservatives claim.

And you apparently want to believe anything they say

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Dude, you deleted your entire comment and are trying to frame the guy like if he's believing GOP talking points. OP disagreed that it wasn't about state rights, and it was about slavery. And now you're here saying he's believing lies? You're the liar, my guy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Now you’re asking off topic questions, we’re talking about the civil war here.

But to supplement you, no, I do not believe the election was stolen. Now let’s get on back to the civil war.

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I see your point, but to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is as stupid as holocaust deniers.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

From how I read the comment above yours, it doesn't imply the civil war wasn't about slavery.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

It was about the south wanting to strip state rights away from states that disagree with them.

The topic at the time was they thought once someone was a slave, they're always a slave. Even if they're in a state where slavery is illegal. So in that respect, it was about slavery.

But they're literally doing the same thing right now by trying to criminalize someone crossing state lines to get an abortion.

Which is why the specifics matter.

If they start another civil war about their residents traveling out of state for abortions where they're legal, you could say that civil war was about abortion, but that's not really accurate.

Because just like back then, Dems aren't trying to force Southern states to change their laws. Just saying one state can't change another states laws.

The root cause is conservative states trying to force liberal states to follow conservative laws from a different state.

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (4 children)

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

He implied it wasn't.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I guess it's in how you read it. I don't read it as such. Edit: maybe it's because I take the entire comment into consideration instead of just one line in the entire comment.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

Only if you stop reading after the first sentence. They only implied that the war wasn't fought over abolition, not that it wasn't about slavery.

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.

The above clearly implies that slavery, and how it was enforced by federal law, was the reason the civil war was started.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No they didn't. At all. They said it wasn't about BANNING slavery, not that it wasn't about slavery in general. They very specifically said it was about southern states wanting to force northern states to return slaves when those states disn't even have legal slavery.

It was still about slavery and "states rights" even in what they said, just not the south reeing about a national ban - at first.

That's the entire fucking reason the "states rights" argument has ANY air, because it DID start as a despute on how far a state's laws went. That doesn't mean it was magically not all revolving around slavery.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

And, at the time, the Supreme Court agreed. In one of their most reviled and embarassing decisions. Let's watch them do it again and again now.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 47 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 7 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 7 months ago

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

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 23 points 7 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 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 15 points 7 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 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

May all the mothers and daughters of these Republicans be the first to suffer these new laws.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

This is about children. No child should suffer through pregnancy. I don't care what their politics are or what their parents' politics are.

[–] WeeSheep@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Just the ones who voted republican. There are plenty of innocent who can't afford to move/travel.

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

Gotta crack some eggs to make an omelette.

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

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

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 4 points 7 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

[–] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 3 points 7 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.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 7 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 -1 points 7 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 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2002-transportation-minors-18-usc-2423

Section 2423(a) of Title 18 prohibits anyone from transporting any individual under the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity. It imposes a maximum 15 years' imprisonment and/or a fine under Title 18.

That's the most on-point that discusses the issue. But try bringing a minor out drinking across state lines, or gambling, or any other illegal activity and see how quickly charges get tacked on for the involvement of a minor. Sex is one of the few cases where laws vary so greatly from state to state, and abortion is probably the next biggest thing now.

If anyone has an example of where it's currently perfectly legal to bring a minor across state lines without parental consent to engage in an activity that is illegal in their home state, I'd love to hear it.

[–] SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This only seems to specify, "...with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity." So I would be lead to believe this law only covers "prostitution or any criminal sexual activity". I don't believe one could expand this law to cover any activity that is illegal under the original state's laws as your original comment stated.

[–] VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago

Criminal sexual activity such as getting an abortion after they got pregnant from rape and need lifesaving abortion wich is illegal in their own state.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You conveniently ignored the part where I also said that engaging in other activity with a minor such as drinking, gambling, etc. are also illegal and will result in charges for involving a minor as well.

And for all the downvotes I get, I have yet to see anyone cite an example of where it's perfectly legal to actually bring a minor across state lines to engage in activity that is illegal in the home state, especially without a parent's permission. Because it seems that the downvotes are less about the validity of the statement and more because it's something people just don't want to hear. Try bringing a minor across state lines for any activity that is not legal for them in their home state. When you get released from prison, remember to let me know how that worked out for you.

load more comments
view more: next ›