this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
300 points (99.7% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3760 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
300
Tennessee Republican files 'abortion trafficking' bill for pregnant minors (www.tennessean.com)
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
80 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 109 points 9 months ago (4 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 13 points 9 months ago (20 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.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (22 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”.

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 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 9 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 9 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's also factually incorrect, since the Feds specifically implemented a law mandating that Northern states return slaves.

[–] StinkyOnions@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Yep, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which was part of the 1850 Compromise.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 9 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.

[–] BillDaCatt@kbin.social 61 points 9 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 21 points 9 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 50 points 9 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 9 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 6 points 9 months ago

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

[–] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 34 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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 23 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 9 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 9 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 16 points 9 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 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

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

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 5 points 9 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 9 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 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›