295

Tennessee Republican files 'abortion trafficking' bill for pregnant minors (www.tennessean.com)

submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

76 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 115 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

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 19 points 11 months ago

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

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 11 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 8 points 11 months ago

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

He implied it wasn't.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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 3 points 11 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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

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 6 points 11 months ago

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 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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 4 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (15 replies)

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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 7 points 11 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.

[-] kimjongunderdog@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

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 8 points 11 months ago

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 9 points 11 months ago

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

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I see nothing here of soldiers being lied to.

[-] Cowlitz@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They weren't. Its just like today where they were steeped in propaganda. Thats no excuse. We should have crushed them after the war. Since we didn't we have had to repeatedly deal with the traitors.

Even now we should be crushing Texas instead of playing their games. We are responsible for enabling their abhorrent behavior.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Well, I can't think of a simpler way to explain it.

I'm sorry you can't understand, but You're doing that thing where you start replying to my other comments and wanting to have the same argument multiple times, and I just don't have the motivation or energy to help people who do that.

[-] Restaldt@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Your argument doesn't seem all that separated from the Nazi Nuremberg defense

"I was just following orders"

The world collectively decided that defense would not stand

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Nope.

What I'm doing would be more like trying to understand why Germans fell for propaganda and fought for the nazis.

It doesn't excuse what they did.

But if we don't understand why they did it, how are we supposed to prevent a future generation from falling for the same shit?

Because, again, we just saw a group of conservatives attempt to overthrow the American government because they believed propaganda.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, we should try to prevent there from being another "next time"?

You don't think that's something that's important?

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] BillDaCatt@kbin.social 61 points 11 months ago

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 22 points 11 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 11 months ago

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

[-] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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.

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Colorado did that over a year ago: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/polis-abortion-colorado-executive-order/73-dc981276-f6ec-4507-94cd-fee301fb80ba

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 11 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 11 months ago

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

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Gotta crack some eggs to make an omelette.

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

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

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 17 points 11 months ago

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 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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 11 months ago

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

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 5 points 11 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

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

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 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 3 points 11 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.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024

295 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19239 readers

1846 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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